NationStates Jolt Archive

SWITZERLAND
Issues of citizenship and direct democracy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7427865.stm)
Quite an interesting article, on how letting citizens decide on whether a person should become a citizen simply leads to dark-skinned applicants being rejected, even when they meet all the other requirements for citizenship and pass stringent tests. It seems racism is alive and well in Switzerland, alas. And it points to the problem of having too few limitations on the direct political power wielded by citizens.

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/7445/tbdzd0.png


The Swiss are poised to vote on whether to revive secret ballots to decide on citizenship - an issue that has stirred passions on both sides.

Switzerland's Supreme Court outlawed the secret ballots five years ago, ruling that they were discriminatory. But many Swiss say not allowing voters to have the final say violates Switzerland's system of direct democracy.

Switzerland already has some of the toughest naturalisation laws in the world.

Candidates for citizenship must have lived in the country for at least 12 years - they must prove that they can speak the language, and that they understand Swiss laws and culture.

What is more, being born in Switzerland does not bring an automatic right to citizenship.

Secret votes

In Switzerland, people wanting to be Swiss must apply through their local community. In many towns and villages, the final hurdle to citizenship is often the approval of local residents at a town hall meeting, or, in the past, by secret ballot.

Two ethnic Turkish men, Elias Ego and Manuel Dogdu, have long experience of this process.

They have lived all their lives in the central Swiss town of Schwyz, but they have Turkish nationality. Schwyz, with a population of 40,000, was one of the towns which used secret ballots to approve new citizens.

"They distributed brochures with our pictures to all the voters," remembers Elias. "There was a little CV with information about us, and our nationality."

"We had passed all the language tests with flying colours," adds Manuel. "The authorities recommended us for citizenship."

Humiliating rejection

Manuel and Elias, together with their parents, brothers and sisters, had hoped the ballot would be a formality. Instead it turned out to be a humiliating public rejection.

"We've been rejected four times now," says Manuel.

"I'm very, very disappointed. I can't understand why I can't be Swiss - Switzerland is my home, I've lived here all my life."

"We were rejected three times," adds Elias, who is now 20.

"I remember, every time, I had to go to school the next day, and everybody knew exactly what had happened. Some people pointed and laughed. It was very tough."

The cases of Elias and Manuel are not unique. In towns which used the ballot system, candidates from Turkey, the former Yugoslavia and Africa were regularly rejected, despite having satisfied all the requirements for naturalisation, while those from Western Europe were approved.

Court ruling

Five years ago, the Swiss Supreme Court outlawed secret ballots, ruling that they could be discriminatory. At the same time, the court ruled that those turned down for citizenship had the right to be given reasons for their rejection, and the right to appeal against the decision.

The ruling brought a storm of protest. Switzerland's tradition of direct democracy generally means the people, the voters, have the final say. Many see the Supreme Court's action as an attack on the very foundations of the Swiss democratic system.

"I cannot accept that judges have the right to decide who gets to be a citizen," says Luzi Stamm, member of parliament for the right-wing Swiss People's Party (SVP).

"Citizenship is a political question. The Swiss population, Swiss society should decide - not lawyers and judges."

The SVP, now the largest party in Switzerland's parliament, has forced the issue to a nationwide referendum. On Sunday voters will decide whether to revive secret ballots and remove the right of appeal, thus giving the final say on naturalisation back to the Swiss people.

Ugly campaign

The campaign has been heated. Normally tranquil Swiss political talk shows have descended into bitter shouting matches.

The SVP's campaign poster, showing black and brown hands grabbing at Swiss passports, has led many to suspect that the real issue is not who decides on citizenship, but how best to keep certain groups out of Switzerland.

In fact, many in the SVP make no secret of this. For member of parliament Peter Foehn, discrimination is not a problem, as long as people have the right to vote.

"If our people, our voters, have the feeling we've had enough from former Yugoslavia, or wherever, the rest will just have to accept it. The people's decision is final."

Still waiting

But for Switzerland's large foreign community - currently 21% of the total population - it may be hard to accept. Many, like Elias and Manuel, know no other home.

"I feel Swiss, I was born here, all my friends are here. For me, this is like my country, my identity," says Elias.

Elias finally got his Swiss citizenship at the fourth attempt, after 10 years of trying, once secret ballots had been outlawed. If they were still being used, he believes he would still be waiting - like Manuel.

"I'm hoping my fifth application will be approved in the spring," Manuel says. "But if they say yes to bringing back ballots, I'll have to go through all that again."

And for Elias, the whole experience has made him question what Switzerland really means by direct democracy.

"How can they do it?" he asks. "They just look at our pictures, and our nationality, and for them that's enough to decide our future? It's not fair. We're living in a democracy, something like that shouldn't be possible."

Maybe if they listed "Plant" instead of their normal ethnicity they'd automatically be granted citizenship.

Wow, that's a special kind of assholery right there. Racist assholes. Seriously, that sort of discrimination is simply unforgivable.

Maybe if they listed "Plant" instead of their normal ethnicity they'd automatically be granted citizenship.
*writes 'plant'*
*goes to apply for Swiss citizenship*

I have to say, I hope they overturn the Court's decision.

What the court is really saying is, "if you honestly feel a certain way about a ballot, and vote so, then you can be a pariah." It's a move away from honesty and towards enforced Political Correctness.

Or to put it simply "We don't like the way you vote, so we're changing the rules to have it our way".

Or to put it simply "We don't like the way you vote, so we're changing the rules to have it our way".

Yes, and there's nothing wrong with that in this case. It's saying: "You're a bigoted idiot who doesn't deserve the right to vote on these matters."

What certain Swiss communities have proved is that many voters are too stupid to exercise their right to vote in a responsible manner. Being a citizen implies being a responsible citizen. It's not a free ride to cast a ballot without thinking. Or at least, it shouldn't be. That's why countries quite rightly enforce limitations on democracy: You can't run a country simply by handing it over to the unfettered will of the uneducated and bigoted majority.

I emphasise again what's been happening in Switzerland. Applicants resided in the country for 12 years or more as law-abiding, productive members of society, then passed stringent tests to demonstrate comprehensive understanding of Swiss laws and culture. Then random rednecks turned them down on the sole basis of their skin colour, or because their names sounded too Eastern European. The irony is that the applicants have shown that they would make much better citizens than the racist jerks who have been denying them citizenship.

It's a myth that the majority of ordinary people are wiser than the government. They're not, and they're proving it. When direct democracy produces grotesque and indefensible results, it's time to rethink some aspects of it.

*crosses off Switzerland of list of places to visit in future*

Why are people still so focused on a persons skin colour? The sooner these attitudes leave society, the better. I can only hope the Swiss wake up and see what they're doing.

Or to put it simply "We don't like the way you vote, so we're changing the rules to have it our way".
There are some things that popular majority does not have a right to mandate on. I'm not sure whether or not "You can't join us" is one such instance - indeed, it seems one of the few things it should have the freedom to do - but the idea of never overruling popular opinion is mistaken. In particular, enforced labour, repression of speech and assassination are not options for the mob to exercise, and if the general opinion wants to lock up, slave-drive, silence and kill anyone who disagrees with them, they should be repressed, whether through moderation, other concessions or the with-holding of government support.

Good for the Swiss, why have democracy if you can't be democratic.

If they don't want any "darkies" then they have the right to decide that, its there country.

Yes, and there's nothing wrong with that in this case. It's saying: "You're a bigoted idiot who doesn't deserve the right to vote on these matters."

What certain Swiss communities have proved is that many voters are too stupid to exercise their right to vote in a responsible manner.

So you have to vote the way that you approve of to be intelligent now, do you? Who made you the standard by which we people should be judged?

Being a citizen implies being a responsible citizen. It's not a free ride to cast a ballot without thinking. Or at least, it shouldn't be. That's why countries quite rightly enforce limitations on democracy: You can't run a country simply by handing it over to the unfettered will of the uneducated and bigoted majority.

A nice collection of emotive terms with no content here. Being a citizen implies having certain rights and responsibilities, nothing more and nothing less. It does not imply, in any way, using those responsibilities in any particular manner.
Countries enforce limitations on democracy at their own choice, and at the sufferance of those that live in the country. Here we are examining a case where some of those that live there are rejecting these limitations.


I emphasise again what's been happening in Switzerland. Applicants resided in the country for 12 years or more as law-abiding, productive members of society, then passed stringent tests to demonstrate comprehensive understanding of Swiss laws and culture. Then random rednecks turned them down on the sole basis of their skin colour, or because their names sounded too Eastern European. The irony is that the applicants have shown that they would make much better citizens than the racist jerks who have been denying them citizenship.
No one has a right to become a citizen of anywhere, regardless of how long they live there or of what they have done for the country. The rejection of these people is not based on their 'skin colour' according to the piece you posted. It is on the basis of their being foreigners. Now you can judge that as being bigoted and unfair, if you so wish, but it is not, in any way, racist. The same rules are to apply to all non citizens, independent of any other factor (wealth, race, religion, gender, height, hair colour whatever). You may dissaprove of the system, but it is not one that is any more unfair than any other system of acquiring nationality that I know of.

Good for the Swiss, why have democracy if you can't be democratic.

If they don't want any "darkies" then they have the right to decide that, its there country.

Screw that noise, and screw those racists and their worthless beliefs and ideals! This is a clear-cut case of tyranny by majority, and it needs to be swiftly put down.

Racism has never done any good for society.

So you have to vote the way that you approve of to be intelligent now, do you? Who made you the standard by which we people should be judged?

Don't be obtuse. Any reasonable and intelligent person would object to what these bigots are doing. Fortunately, the Swiss Supreme Court belongs to the category of the sane.

Being a citizen implies having certain rights and responsibilities, nothing more and nothing less. It does not imply, in any way, using those responsibilities in any particular manner.

It implies exercising your right to cast a ballot in a responsible and informed manner. If you're too stupid to cast your vote on the basis of fact and reason, and do so instead on the basis of gut prejudice, then your ballot should be deemed worthless. Which appears to be the reasoning of the Swiss Supreme Court.

I know your ideology balks at recognising that direct democracy means giving power to the uneducated and prejuduced masses, because your beliefs rest on the necessity of believing in the wisdom of the great majority of individuals. But I repeat what I said: There's a reason why States place limits on direct democracy. And that reason is a very good one.

It's the same reason why "the people" aren't allowed to rule that schools or buses should be segregated on the basis of race.


No one has a right to become a citizen of anywhere, regardless of how long they live there or of what they have done for the country.

That's not the issue, and you know it. The issue here is ethnic discrimination.


The rejection of these people is not based on their 'skin colour' according to the piece you posted. It is on the basis of their being foreigners.

No. Either you've misread, or you're being dishonest. The trend has been to approve applications by Western Europeans, and reject those of Eastern Europeans, Africans and other non-whites, despite them having successfully passed every other stringent citizenship test and requirement. They have been rejected purely on the basis of their origins, not just because they were foreign in an indistinct way.

This is a case of people being model members of the community and being denied citizenship by a bunch of rednecks who have an irrational dislike of people with dark skin.


The same rules are to apply to all non citizens, independent of any other factor (wealth, race, religion, gender, height, hair colour whatever).

They should, yes. I'm glad that you agree with me on this point (whereby you're contradicting yourself). The fact is that the same rules did not apply to all non-citizens. The Supreme Court's ruling aimed at removing discrimination, and ensuring that the same rules could actually apply to all.

It's childishly naive to argue that direct democracy should be allowed to flourish without limitations.

why have democracy if you can't be democratic.

That's extremely silly.

There's a difference between representative democracy and pure democracy. The latter is rejected as unfeasible, precisely because, in many cases, the majority of citizens are not intelligent, rational and educated enough to exercise the responsabilities it would imply.

Are you seriously suggesting that, if the majority ruled that Blacks can no longer use public transport, it should be done? Or that all synagogues should be closed? Or that all ethnic Chinese should be deported? Or that all persons with Arab names should have their phones tapped?

If not, then you agree that there have to be limits on the rights of the majority to hurl the country around on the basis of its irrational whims.

The US needs to intervene to end the racism!!!

I think it is a good idea.

*crosses off Switzerland of list of places to visit in future*

That absolutely makes sense, because this is the only country with racists in it. We'll be sending that initiative down the drain tomorrow as usual, so what's the commotion?

It might not be discrimination based on skin color - It might be discrimination based on incompatible culture.

I personally don't particularly care about the skin color of a specific person, the cultural values they represent are much more important to me.

If someone wishes, for example, to cover their wimmen from head to toe, practice circumcision, undervalue the education or legal system or take part in honor killings - I'd say no thanks, come back when you're civilized.

In this case, I most likely would've allowed them Turks in - Depending a bit on their family values.


One could argue that my view - cultural racism - is one reason direct democracy is doomed to fail....and I agree :D

Screw that noise, and screw those racists and their worthless beliefs and ideals! This is a clear-cut case of tyranny by majority, and it needs to be swiftly put down.

Racism has never done any good for society.

It's true. 500 years on and the Romani (gypsies) are still 3rd class citizens all over Europe.

It's true. 500 years on and the Romani (gypsies) are still 3rd class citizens all over Europe.

They're bound by their culture.

Unless they're willing to give up parts of their culture they cannot be properly integrated to western society - It is as simple as that.

For example, attitude towards education (Wiki quote):
Only a small fraction of Roma children graduate from secondary schools, though numerous official efforts have been made, past and present, to compel their attendance.

According to The Guardian (January 8, 2003):
"In the Czech Republic, 75% of Roma children are educated in schools for people with learning difficulties, and 70% are unemployed (compared with a national rate of 9%). In Hungary, 44% of Roma children are in special schools, while 74% of men and 83% of women are unemployed. In Slovakia, Roma children are 28 times more likely to be sent to a special school than non-Roma; Roma unemployment stands at 80%." [3]

Or the whole notion of cleanliness:
Nevertheless, the Roma most visible to the settled community are those that for various reasons, including traditional avoidance of "pollution" by close contact with non-Roma (cultural standards of cleanliness among the Roma state that non-Roma are 'mahrime', or spiritually unclean, and are therefore avoided for purity reasons as well as fear of 'persecution'), still live in shacks (usually built ad hoc, near railways) and beg on the streets, perpetuating the bad image of Roma overall

What a surprise. People are jerks everywhere.

Yes, and there's nothing wrong with that in this case. It's saying: "You're a bigoted idiot who doesn't deserve the right to vote on these matters."

What certain Swiss communities have proved is that many voters are too stupid to exercise their right to vote in a responsible manner. Being a citizen implies being a responsible citizen. It's not a free ride to cast a ballot without thinking. Or at least, it shouldn't be. That's why countries quite rightly enforce limitations on democracy: You can't run a country simply by handing it over to the unfettered will of the uneducated and bigoted majority.

I emphasise again what's been happening in Switzerland. Applicants resided in the country for 12 years or more as law-abiding, productive members of society, then passed stringent tests to demonstrate comprehensive understanding of Swiss laws and culture. Then random rednecks turned them down on the sole basis of their skin colour, or because their names sounded too Eastern European. The irony is that the applicants have shown that they would make much better citizens than the racist jerks who have been denying them citizenship.

It's a myth that the majority of ordinary people are wiser than the government. They're not, and they're proving it. When direct democracy produces grotesque and indefensible results, it's time to rethink some aspects of it.

What makes you think they are not thinking? We might think they're assholes, but quite clearly, what they're thinking is, "We don't want the culture and the ethnicity of our country changing."

Unfair? Sure. Unthinking? Hardly.
Question: why the hell would someone INSIST on staying someplace where the indigenous population has made a point not only of declining to make them citizens but singled them out for ridicule and humiliation? Tell them to go fuck themselves and move someplace more welcoming.

It's a myth that the majority of ordinary people are wiser than the government. They're not, and they're proving it. When direct democracy produces grotesque and indefensible results, it's time to rethink some aspects of it.

Sadly, more than a few still beat the drum that democracy is some kind of universal balm to the world's ills.

They're bound by their culture.

Unless they're willing to give up parts of their culture they cannot be properly integrated to western society - It is as simple as that.

Like what?
The US has been very successful at it, but then MOST groups that come here tend to learn English and "turn" into Americans after two or three generations. How is it that so many European states fail to integrate their gypsy populations? (I know that some like Portugal have done better than, say, Slovakia...)

I have to say, I hope they overturn the Court's decision.

What the court is really saying is, "if you honestly feel a certain way about a ballot, and vote so, then you can be a pariah." It's a move away from honesty and towards enforced Political Correctness.

Or to put it simply "We don't like the way you vote, so we're changing the rules to have it our way".

What if a township decided to have weekly lynchings, and the unfortunate victims are picked by ballot?

Would that be "changing the rules" if the courts disallowed it?

After all, the citizenship process set by the government already has a whole set of standards which should mean anyone passing them should be accepted. Yet these people are going around and thumbing their nose at the laws. Why have the standards in the first place then, if the people, who apparently need no standards of their own to pass, are the ones who have final say?

The US needs to intervene to end the racism!!!

I think it is a good idea.

You would.

Like what?
The US has been very successful at it, but then MOST groups that come here tend to learn English and "turn" into Americans after two or three generations. How is it that so many European states fail to integrate their gypsy populations? (I know that some like Portugal have done better than, say, Slovakia...)
I edited my post with Wiki sources.

They have strong culture that is inherently incompatible with integration to mainstream.

We have considerable Romani minority here and they're not well integrated, though the condition is nowhere near as as that of Romania, Slovakia, etc.. (edit: for example, the native Romani rarely beg or live in makeshift buildings) But on the other hand we also have Tatar minority which is *fully* integrated to our society while sharing similar physical features.

It's the pride of the Romani people and pride for their culture and pride for their heritage that prevents large scale integration to European society: They particularly expect the majority to yield instead of changing their own ways.

So you have to vote the way that you approve of to be intelligent now, do you? Who made you the standard by which we people should be judged?



A nice collection of emotive terms with no content here. Being a citizen implies having certain rights and responsibilities, nothing more and nothing less. It does not imply, in any way, using those responsibilities in any particular manner.
Countries enforce limitations on democracy at their own choice, and at the sufferance of those that live in the country. Here we are examining a case where some of those that live there are rejecting these limitations.



No one has a right to become a citizen of anywhere, regardless of how long they live there or of what they have done for the country. The rejection of these people is not based on their 'skin colour' according to the piece you posted. It is on the basis of their being foreigners. Now you can judge that as being bigoted and unfair, if you so wish, but it is not, in any way, racist. The same rules are to apply to all non citizens, independent of any other factor (wealth, race, religion, gender, height, hair colour whatever). You may dissaprove of the system, but it is not one that is any more unfair than any other system of acquiring nationality that I know of.

Cara, pelo que eu me lembro, você não é brasileiro. Eu conheço nossas leis e você também, as de imigração ao menos. E, francamente, nosso sistema é bem melhor do que deixar um bando de animais pé-rapados decidir nosso futuro. Você tem cidadania aqui (acho) porque a Polícia Federal, com critérios lá dela, te deu. E tanto melhor, porque colocar sua cidadania nas mãos de um bando de ignorantes que não quereria um "gringo" aqui não ia ser bom.

Question: why the hell would someone INSIST on staying someplace where the indigenous population has made a point not only of declining to make them citizens but singled them out for ridicule and humiliation?

I'd do it to make the point that I'm staying and that I know I'm bothering them. I'd do it to make a point of power, to rub it in the collective faces of these unpeople that they can do nothing to prevent me from being where I please. I'd further make a point of pointing and laughing at each and every one of them whenever their kids got a bad grade, their relatives died in a car accident, and so on and so forth. Because racists are not people. They don't get to vote, they don't get not to be offended and I find it generous that they get to breathe.

You would.

hey the cost of swiss cheese has gone up 30%.
We need to make sure they are not artificially lowering production to control the price.

That absolutely makes sense, because this is the only country with racists in it. We'll be sending that initiative down the drain tomorrow as usual, so what's the commotion?

Actually, I can think of a few reasons not to spend my tourism money on Switzerland, the Swiss being just one of them. :p

This is clearly one of those times when a community as a whole has one of its flaws laid out for all to see. From a number of recent news reports, it seems that racism is rampant in Switzerland, and the Swiss people are now faced, publicly, with having to decide what, if anything, to do about it. Whatever they do, their choices on this issue will define their national character to the rest of the world and, possibly, affect their relations with the world as a result. They have to decide whether they care and what kind of people they want to be.

Ah...I dunno...I'm a supporter of multi-culturalism, but on the other hand, if there is this community that actually really dislikes you, a) why must you insist that you are able to integrate, when integration also means getting the local people to like you, and b) even if they allow you to stay, you wouldn't enjoy it anyway.

I am an ethnic minority in my country of residence but I fully empathise with the local people feeling apprehensive about foreigners flooding in to take advantage of the benefits etc. The reason why people want Western citizenship is not because they like the West; it's more because they really dislike where they come from. If the conditions at home improve, I bet they're more happy to go back.

Tyranny of the majority, eh.

"They distributed brochures with our pictures to all the voters," remembers Elias.

Switzerland will soon be brimming with beautiful women (and tabloids who will never know who is guilty)

I am an ethnic minority in my country of residence

your English? *does things poor people do*

your English? *does things poor people do*

My English is what? Very good, I hope?;)

If you mean "You're English?", no I'm not English. I said I'm an ethnic minority where I live!

Racism is alive and well. Unfortunatly. Switzerland of all places *Shames*

If you mean "You're English?", no I'm not English. I said I'm an ethnic minority where I live!

:eek: Illegal immigrant! *calls the Sun*

Racism is alive and well. Unfortunatly. Switzerland of all places *Shames*

they need to protect the purity of their cheeses!

:eek: Illegal immigrant! *calls the Sun*

English describes a cultural nationality! I'm British, but not English!!

There are a few ridiculous fallacies I'd like to point out, the first of them being from the BBC article itself.

This article clearly shows a bias and is obviously journalism with a motive...because if we look at the story it says this:

Ugly campaign

The SVP's campaign poster, showing black and brown hands grabbing at Swiss passports, has led many to suspect that the real issue is not who decides on citizenship, but how best to keep certain groups out of Switzerland.

In fact, many in the SVP make no secret of this. For member of parliament Peter Foehn, discrimination is not a problem, as long as people have the right to vote.

1.
If one takes any time to simply not be a sheep and look at the campaign poster, it CLEARLY shows hands of all races, where the article will have you believe it's just "black and brown".

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44703000/jpg/_44703063_10e3a3b3-68d9-4a26-8a6b-9dceba581895.jpg

This is the same thing that happend with the SVP had the poster kicking out the black sheep and people said "The SVP wants to kick blacks out of the country", where as (I know that sounds so nice and convienent for leftists) in reality, most immigration problems and immigration reforms are directed at Balkan immigrants, that is White European immigrants. However, leftists fools are quick to forget that because it doesn't work well with their "the SVP hates black people" 'arguement'.

2. There is nothing wrong with a community discriminating who they feel is culturally assimilable into their society. Nobody here has any proof that it has to do with "darkies", indeed many people that feel the wrath of the anti-immigrant sentiments are balkan people, again...white people. Communities in Switzerland have always had the right to decide want they want in their community, thus is the essence of the Swiss direct democract tradition. The supreme court is wrong, and are trying to override the sovereignty of the swiss communities.

3. Multiculturalism is not the God given truth to a society. Many soceities simply don't want it and don't accept it. A representative of Japan said that Japan is a one race nation, and the concept of "multiculturalism" is simply unimaginable in Japan, yet we don't see people bitching and complaining about how we need to teach Japan how to actually run their society, so give Switzerland a fucking break. It's doing just fine without all the flaws and ailments of the rest of Western society. I seriously doubt Switzerland thinks the rest of Europe knows better than it, and will heed and warning about how Switzerland is conducting it's society. Direct Democray IS Switzerland, and Switzerland is a direct democracy. To say "we need to change that" simply because you are too weak to stomach the outcome of what people decide for their own community, is simply, well, hypocritical and weak. A community has the right to decide how other people in that community live. If not, the idea of tax raises and tax decreases, would also be wrong.

4. I saw someone say "if they started lynching black people in Switzerland, because it was direct democracy, we wouldn't be ok with that." That is such a fallacy I don't even know where to start. Consensus against immigration is not murder, and also, have you ever even been to Switzerland. It's a very peaceful country, indeed the immigrants are the ones bringing in the crime, and the thought of lynching to direct democracy is just fear gouging.

Next time, take some time to realise what you are talking about. You can't just support democracy when it suits your exact political views and then don't when it doesn't. Direct Democracy is amongst the more fair and ideal political systems in the world, it just doesn't work in most soceties. In Switzerland it does, and I'll be damned if a few leftists will change that just to bring the country in line with the woes of the rest of the world.

http://www.atms.ch/pics/schweizerfahne.gif

Yes, and there's nothing wrong with that in this case. It's saying: "You're a bigoted idiot who doesn't deserve the right to vote on these matters."

What certain Swiss communities have proved is that many voters are too stupid to exercise their right to vote in a responsible manner.
I'm sure all of the world's dictators would agree that the people were too stupid to rule. Also, what does responsible mean? I'm sure you don't have a monopoly on the definition - someone else might see your ideas as unreasonable and irresponsible. Typical hypocritical attitude that a lot of elitists hold - democracy's great, unless I disagree with it.

TAI, Banana (No matter who you ACTUALLY are) :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

And a grisly, grim "goodnight".

Ah...I dunno...I'm a supporter of multi-culturalism, but on the other hand, if there is this community that actually really dislikes you

Yeah, for example if this community actually, really dislikes you because of your dark skin, because you might be Muslim, because you were born in a different country...

Nothing wrong or discriminatory about that, as I'm sure TAI will be quick to point out.

, a) why must you insist that you are able to integrate, when integration also means getting the local people to like you

Integrating has nothing to do with winning a fucking popularity contest. It means obeying the local laws and such.

, and b) even if they allow you to stay, you wouldn't enjoy it anyway.

Well that's true enough, but then, the same thing could be said of Jewish immigrants fleeing (well, being deported on leaky boats) from Germany. Hey, just go somewhere where you'll be LIKED!

(Where that might be is your problem, since you're the immigrants with no job and Therefore, can easily afford to spend years and years with no country.)

I am an ethnic minority in my country of residence but I fully empathise with the local people feeling apprehensive about foreigners flooding in to take advantage of the benefits etc.

I don't. I feel apprehensive about 'natives' taking advantage of benefits etc.

There are more of them. They do less with it. Their chances of starting successful businesses are lower. They demand higher wages and more benefits, and will find ways and lawyers to get around having to pay taxes. They know the system and have connections.

The 'foreigners' are a trickle, the 'natives' are the flood. But let's pretend the trickle is the big problem and it's really just about some zero-sum-game welfare fantasy scenario justification.

No one has a right to become a citizen of anywhere, regardless of how long they live there or of what they have done for the country. The rejection of these people is not based on their 'skin colour' according to the piece you posted. It is on the basis of their being foreigners.

They were born there, have lived all their lives there. What else do they have to do?

There are a few ridiculous fallacies I'd like to point out

Now theres fuckin irony if ever I read it.....

TAI, Banana (No matter who you ACTUALLY are) :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

And a grisly, grim "goodnight".
Not sure what you mean by TAI (Ummm.... Turkish Aerospace Industries?), but I'm someone else who hasn't been on for a while, account went kaput, boooo.

They were born there, have lived all their lives there. What else do they have to do?

Turn ethnic Swiss?

4. I saw someone say "if they started lynching black people in Switzerland, because it was direct democracy, we wouldn't be ok with that." That is such a fallacy I don't even know where to start.

Is it? Some people seem to be fine with anything going so long as the majority want it. If they can agree that murder is out, that's a limit right there. So either there's a limit to how much direct democracy can do or there isn't. If you start saying the limit can be taken out for certain things, there's no real way to stop it from being expanded to more horrific things other than some naive hope in common humanity that certain people on this forum clearly demonstrate that they don't have.

Slippery slopes are often abused, I admit, but that doesn't mean they're automatically invalid.


It's a very peaceful country, indeed the immigrants are the ones bringing in the crime,

Having been there not once, but multiple times, I will agree that it is mostly peaceful, but I ask you to prove the bolded. Are the Swiss some sort of perfect robots who never commit crimes? Or is it merely that as populations increase, crime does, which is then blamed entirely on the newcomers?


and the thought of lynching to direct democracy is just fear gouging.


And the bolded in the quote above was not fear gouging by you? Or is that a ridiculous fallacy that you like to rail against?


You can't just support democracy when it suits your exact political views and then don't when it doesn't.

I don't support democracy. Period. I think it's nothing more than an ideal that collapses in any population of size because if nothing else, democracy relies on undemocratic underpinnings to work.


Direct Democracy is amongst the more fair and ideal political systems in the world, it just doesn't work in most soceties. In Switzerland it does, and I'll be damned if a few leftists will change that just to bring the country in line with the woes of the rest of the world.

So far, only greed and death, a suspected rightist on the political spectrum, has advocated changing Switzerland.

Turn ethnic Swiss?

Remove the sins of Ham from their skin with bleach?

(It's Ham, right? I never paid much attention to Biblical justifications for racism, on account of them being incredibly stupid.)

Remove the sins of Ham from their skin with bleach?

(It's Ham, right? I never paid much attention to Biblical justifications for racism, on account of them being incredibly stupid.)

I think that the Mormons have a variant on that, except it's the "tribe of Levi".

Turn ethnic Swiss?

Were there such a thing, I'd imagine thats what certain parties would want.

TAI, Banana (No matter who you ACTUALLY are)
What?

-Snip-
I get the feeling that a lot of what you're criticising is core to the notion of a Nation State. Why should "our country" establish benefits for its citizens that it doesn't set up for other people? In a sense, what makes it a "country" rather than a global movement is that it deals only with a convenient and select subsection of humanity. The idea of integrating with this country is that you adapt to suit a paradigm that it knows how to deal with, whether that paradigm be cultural, intellectual, industrial or whatever.

I agree that this isn't how the world should work. Global multiculturalism, as a system wherein people are not segregated by their attitudes on either a communal or international level but still meet and congregate in expressions of their preferred culture, is highly preferable. But that's not what nations are for. Nations are about keeping people separate and generally homogenous for the sake of administrative ease. And I can't exactly blame people for doing just that given that they're talking about national identity, even if I think they're short-sighted for not throwing away nationality as an administrative concept altogether.

Were there such a thing, I'd imagine thats what certain parties would want.

It's right there with the absurd concept of "ethnic American"

I get the feeling that a lot of what you're criticising is core to the notion of a Nation State. Why should "our country" establish benefits for its citizens that it doesn't set up for other people? In a sense, what makes it a "country" rather than a global movement is that it deals only with a convenient and select subsection of humanity.

That subset would include people who move to become a part of that country.

Nations are about keeping people separate and generally homogenous for the sake of administrative ease.

Administrative ease? Do tell in what way it's easier to administrate a country if everyone there worships the same god. Easier to keep track of where they are when they go to church? Don't need that extra, time- and money-consuming "Mosque" addition and can just always use "Church?" Or I know, maybe it's easier to count the votes of white people...!

What?

Read the link.

Now theres fuckin irony if ever I read it.....
And ignore the rest of my post. How typical of you.
Is it? Some people seem to be fine with anything going so long as the majority want it. If they can agree that murder is out, that's a limit right there. So either there's a limit to how much direct democracy can do or there isn't. If you start saying the limit can be taken out for certain things, there's no real way to stop it from being expanded to more horrific things other than some naive hope in common humanity that certain people on this forum clearly demonstrate that they don't have.

Slippery slopes are often abused, I admit, but that doesn't mean they're automatically invalid.
If there were cases of Swiss people killing people under the guise of direct-democracy, then we'd have a real arguement. It's just that simple. Direct democracy in Switzerland has simply been used to define the basis of each community, whether that comes to immigration, voting, taxes, ect ect. It's not about people ganging up and attacking, it's about local communities being the deciding factor in their community through a political means of say.


Having been there not once, but multiple times, I will agree that it is mostly peaceful, but I ask you to prove the bolded. Are the Swiss some sort of perfect robots who never commit crimes? Or is it merely that as populations increase, crime does, which is then blamed entirely on the newcomers?
If you have been there multiple times, you must have heard about the Albanians and other former Yugoslavs who start fights, create gangs..ect ect. If not, one sec.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Switzerland

The police registered a total of 332,452 criminal offenses in 2003, including 187 killings and 547 cases of rape. In the same year, 86,186 adults (85% of them male, 51.1% of them Swiss citizens) were convicted under criminal law. 54.8% of convictions were for traffic offences, 37.9% of punishments were in the form of fines only. In the same year, 13,483 minors (82% of them male, 61.4% of them of Swiss nationality, 79.5% aged between 15 and 18) were convicted.

Convictions for infliction of bodily harm have steadily increased throughout the 1990s and 2000s, with 23 convictions for serious injury and 831 for light injury in 1990 as opposed to 78 and 2,342, respectively, in 2005. Convictions for rape have also slightly increased, fluctuating between 61 and 100 cases per year in the period 1985 to 1995, but between 100 and 113 cases in the period 2000 to 2005. Consistent with these trends, convictions for threats or violence directed against officials has consistently risen in the same period, from 348 in 1990 to 891 in 2003.[4][5]

convictions 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
criminal law 22,324 24,055 26,794 30,120 29,952
traffic regulations 45,237 45,868 48,160 52,634 48'332
narcotics 8,163 8,691 9,386 11,220 10,881

convictions under criminal law:

year convictions male Swiss
1985 22,207 81.4% 67.6%
1990 21,692 85.1% 58.5%
1995 18,977 83.5% 55.3%
2000 22,316 85.1% 48.9%
2001 22,324 84.0% 50.8%
2002 24,055 84.5% 48.5%
2003 26,794 84.2% 46.9%
2004 30,120 84.6% 47.1%
2005 29,952 84.4% 48.8%

At the end of 2006, 5,888 people were interned in Swiss prisons, one third of them on remand (or 79 in 100,000, comparable to the ratio in France; the USA have 740, Germany has 98 and Iceland has 29 in 100,000), 31% of them Swiss citizens, 69% resident foreigners or illegal immigrants; excluding remand: 36% Swiss or 32 in 100,000, 64% foreigners or 160 in 100,000.

While the crime rate among resident foreigners is significantly higher (by a factor 3.7 counting convictions under criminal law in 2003), this is mainly due to the different demographic composition, the non-naturalized population consisting of a significantly higher ratio of young males (according to a statement issued by the federal statistics office in 1996[6]) In 1997, there were for the first time more foreigners than Swiss among the convicts under criminal law (out of a fraction of 20.6% of the total population at the time). In 1999, the Federal Department of Justice and Police ordered a study regarding deliquency and nationality (Arbeitsgruppe "Ausländerkriminalität"), which in its final report (2001) found that a conviction rate under criminal law about 12 times higher among asylum seekers (4%), while the conviction rate among other resident foreigners was about twice as high (0.6%) compared to Swiss citizens (0.3%).[7]
That's quite old, and things have only gotten much worse...so I'm looking for a newer source.


More than 20 percent of Swiss inhabitants are foreign nationals, and the SVP argues that a disproportionate number of them are law-breakers. The party says many of the country’s drug dealers are foreign, and according to federal statistics about 70 percent of the prison population is non-Swiss.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/07/news/swiss.php



And the bolded in the quote above was not fear gouging by you? Or is that a ridiculous fallacy that you like to rail against?
No. it's not. It's common to know that a huge disproportionate ammount of the crime is commited by immigrants, notably WHITE immigrants from the Balkans. Also, the prison populations are disproportionately non-Swiss.

I don't support democracy. Period. I think it's nothing more than an ideal that collapses in any population of size because if nothing else, democracy relies on undemocratic underpinnings to work.
Fine.

So far, only greed and death, a suspected rightist on the political spectrum, has advocated changing Switzerland.
Wrong. It's the left that advocates changing Switzerland. Entering the EU, opening borders, fighting against the SVP that is the defender of the Swiss nation and tradition, ect ect ect.

That subset would include people who move to become a part of that country.
Only if they're otherwise suitable to the paradigm that the nation seeks to restrict itself to. For instance, I can't move to America and expect there to be a Communist subsystem in place for people who align to socialism.

Administrative ease? Do tell in what way it's easier to administrate a country if everyone there worships the same god... Don't need that extra, time- and money-consuming "Mosque" addition and can just always use "Church?"
That example was kinda what I was talking about. You don't need to maintain services and provisions for particular groups if that group doesn't exist. No dissent means no need for debate, no need for due process, no sense of controversy and no active protest. That gets things done, even if the things that you do get done are reprehensible to us as outsiders - taking Fascism as the example instance.

It's right there with the absurd concept of "ethnic American"
No it's not because America is an immigrant nation. Switzerland, however, is not. Thus Swiss people do consider themselves ethnic Swiss. In fact, in Switzerland when you have your I.D. it asks and then says the place your family (that is, not even where you were born) come from. For example, where your family hails from. This is directly in relation to the idea of a Swiss ethnicity.

Again, just because it's not a way in your country, doesn't mean it's not in another country. There is very much so an idea of a Swiss ethnicity.

If you have been there multiple times, you must have heard about the Albanians and other former Yugoslavs who start fights, create gangs..ect ect. If not, one sec.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Switzerland

Oh yes, a higher CONVICTION rate for immigrants.

Big fucking deal. That proves people are biased against immigrants. I suppose you're gonna say the higher conviction rate for black people in America is a result of black people being inherently criminal by nature? There is no difference here.

That's quite old

Indeed. Bigotry and irrational arguments - especially from you: very, very old. Tiresome, annoying, and we all know that no matter how many times they're shot down, you'll keep bringing them up again.

so I'm looking for a newer source.


Have you tried Mein Kampf?

Also, the prison populations are disproportionately non-Swiss.

And the prison populations in the US are disproportionately non-White.

Wrong. It's the left that advocates changing Switzerland. Entering the EU, opening borders, fighting against the SVP that is the defender of the Swiss nation and tradition, ect ect ect.

Wow, you really have a hard-on for those nazi fuckholes, eh! Big surprise there.

Only if they're otherwise suitable to the paradigm that the nation seeks to restrict itself to. For instance, I can't move to America and expect there to be a Communist subsystem in place for people who align to socialism.


Sure you can. Join the CPA. Start posting on NSG about how great socialism and communism are. There's a subsystem in place here for that, as long as you don't go assuming you've already MADE the glorious worldwide revolution and don't need to pay for bread at the store now...

That example was kinda what I was talking about. You don't need to maintain services and provisions for particular groups if that group doesn't exist.

Government doesn't maintain services for churches...

And the extra check box on some stupid form is about as laughable an excuse for getting rid of people as I've ever heard. "Think how much money we'll save on ink if we don't have to print the word "Hispanic" anymore! WOW! OUR COUNTRY WILL HAVE THE ADVANTAGE WE'VE ALWAYS SOUGHT!"

No dissent means no need for debate, no need for due process, no sense of controversy and no active protest. That gets things done, even if the things that you do get done are reprehensible to us as outsiders - taking Fascism as the example instance.

That doesn't sound like a *good* thing to me.

Sure you can. Join the CPA. Start posting on NSG about how great socialism and communism are. There's a subsystem in place here for that, as long as you don't go assuming you've already MADE the glorious worldwide revolution and don't need to pay for bread at the store now...
Is the bread store part of the communist system, whereby as long as I work, my bread will be taken care of? Dealing with capital is against my principles, and it would be great to know how to make the right arrangements without having to do so.

(Trying to make a slightly ridiculous point, but obviously I've no idea how the CPA actually works, so I've no idea how far I can push it...)

Government doesn't maintain services for churches...

And the extra check box on some stupid form is about as laughable an excuse for getting rid of people as I've ever heard. "Think how much money we'll save on ink if we don't have to print the word "Hispanic" anymore! WOW! OUR COUNTRY WILL HAVE THE ADVANTAGE WE'VE ALWAYS SOUGHT!"
I'm not really talking about getting rid of people - I'm more talking about the historical argument about not letting people in. Core to my point, I guess, is that the Nation State is fundamentally an antiquated notion. It was built around the notion that keeping "our sort" and "their sort" separately made it easier for all of us than having to deal with each other. This meant you could provide support for a particular religious or cultural institution without worrying about the alternatives. For instance, see Christianity around the Tudor era.

That doesn't sound like a *good* thing to me.
'course not. But, to the people to whom it does (namely, the members of the country), it's a great convenience. Particularly if it results in improved public services, lower taxes and convenience goods prices, crime reduction, childcare and lowered unemployment for the majority, which is what most people really care about when you get down to the gritty details.

There are a few ridiculous fallacies I'd like to point out, the first of them being from the BBC article itself.

This article clearly shows a bias and is obviously journalism with a motive...because if we look at the story it says this:

Ugly campaign

The SVP's campaign poster, showing black and brown hands grabbing at Swiss passports, has led many to suspect that the real issue is not who decides on citizenship, but how best to keep certain groups out of Switzerland.

In fact, many in the SVP make no secret of this. For member of parliament Peter Foehn, discrimination is not a problem, as long as people have the right to vote.

1.
If one takes any time to simply not be a sheep and look at the campaign poster, it CLEARLY shows hands of all races, where the article will have you believe it's just "black and brown".

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44703000/jpg/_44703063_10e3a3b3-68d9-4a26-8a6b-9dceba581895.jpg

This is the same thing that happend with the SVP had the poster kicking out the black sheep and people said "The SVP wants to kick blacks out of the country", where as (I know that sounds so nice and convienent for leftists) in reality, most immigration problems and immigration reforms are directed at Balkan immigrants, that is White European immigrants. However, leftists fools are quick to forget that because it doesn't work well with their "the SVP hates black people" 'arguement'.

2. There is nothing wrong with a community discriminating who they feel is culturally assimilable into their society. Nobody here has any proof that it has to do with "darkies", indeed many people that feel the wrath of the anti-immigrant sentiments are balkan people, again...white people. Communities in Switzerland have always had the right to decide want they want in their community, thus is the essence of the Swiss direct democract tradition. The supreme court is wrong, and are trying to override the sovereignty of the swiss communities.

3. Multiculturalism is not the God given truth to a society. Many soceities simply don't want it and don't accept it. A representative of Japan said that Japan is a one race nation, and the concept of "multiculturalism" is simply unimaginable in Japan, yet we don't see people bitching and complaining about how we need to teach Japan how to actually run their society, so give Switzerland a fucking break. It's doing just fine without all the flaws and ailments of the rest of Western society. I seriously doubt Switzerland thinks the rest of Europe knows better than it, and will heed and warning about how Switzerland is conducting it's society. Direct Democray IS Switzerland, and Switzerland is a direct democracy. To say "we need to change that" simply because you are too weak to stomach the outcome of what people decide for their own community, is simply, well, hypocritical and weak. A community has the right to decide how other people in that community live. If not, the idea of tax raises and tax decreases, would also be wrong.

4. I saw someone say "if they started lynching black people in Switzerland, because it was direct democracy, we wouldn't be ok with that." That is such a fallacy I don't even know where to start. Consensus against immigration is not murder, and also, have you ever even been to Switzerland. It's a very peaceful country, indeed the immigrants are the ones bringing in the crime, and the thought of lynching to direct democracy is just fear gouging.

Next time, take some time to realise what you are talking about. You can't just support democracy when it suits your exact political views and then don't when it doesn't. Direct Democracy is amongst the more fair and ideal political systems in the world, it just doesn't work in most soceties. In Switzerland it does, and I'll be damned if a few leftists will change that just to bring the country in line with the woes of the rest of the world.

http://www.atms.ch/pics/schweizerfahne.gif

1. Actually, the BBC is correct in that the picture does show black and brown hands grabbing at Swiss passports, are you blind?

As well, I'm quite sure that the "whiter" hands are those of Eastern Europeans who the Swiss aren't quite fond of, racism against any group is unacceptable. The argument of "leftists" still holds true, the SVP is racist, it doesn't matter whether it's specifically racist only to "darkies".

2. This is democracy at its worst. The Swiss literally receive the right to destroy someone else's life. They see a picture with a little description, vote on a secret ballot, and fuck someone over. This is the problem of democracy without controls. You don't have a right to kick out people just because they're different. As well, you have absolutely no proof that in this case, the people applying for citizenship weren't "assimilable". They had been in Switzerland for many years, they knew the language, indeed, all their friends were Swiss. The fact is, they were rejected three times because the way they looked, because their ethnicity, not because of their "culture".

3. You want to talk about fallacies, lets look at yours.

"Multiculturalism is not the God given truth to a society. Many soceities simply don't want it and don't accept it. A representative of Japan said that Japan is a one race nation, and the concept of "multiculturalism" is simply unimaginable in Japan, yet we don't see people bitching and complaining about how we need to teach Japan how to actually run their society, so give Switzerland a fucking break. It's doing just fine without all the flaws and ailments of the rest of Western society. I seriously doubt Switzerland thinks the rest of Europe knows better than it, and will heed and warning about how Switzerland is conducting it's society. Direct Democray IS Switzerland, and Switzerland is a direct democracy. To say "we need to change that" simply because you are too weak to stomach the outcome of what people decide for their own community, is simply, well, hypocritical and weak. A community has the right to decide how other people in that community live. If not, the idea of tax raises and tax decreases, would also be wrong. "

How do you know God exists, and how do you that multiculturalism isn't "God's given truth"? The truth is that a) you can only believe in God and b) you can't prove that God doesn't want multiculturalism.

Right, that's a fallacy by the way. "Some people do it, so it must be ok!" Just because some countries do it doesn't make it right or just. Some countries systematically kill/allow killing of their people, so obviously it's ok, right? Some countries censor the press and kill/imprison dissidents, so it's obviously ok, right? Some countries attack others without just reason, but that's fine right? Some people murder and rape others, but that's ok right? THE BOTTOMLINE: You're whole paragraph is full of bullshit. Just because Japan does it doesn't make it ok.

Then you claim direct democracy is Switzerland and Switzerland is direct democracy. Where is your proof. Also, it's a fallacy because you're only "proof" is that Switzerland is a direct democracy because it is a direct democracy. Furthermore, direct democracy allows the absolute tyranny of the majority over the minority, which you'll have to justify even if you win the above. Direct democracy is not a good thing, rather, the power of the majority should be limited, which appears to be happening in Switzerland to a certain extent. You and your family don't have the right to decide whether or not I get citizenship. The most just thing is to base citizenship on a certain set of requirements for everyone.

4. Well, I'll agree that being against immigration does not equate to murder. However, it is an attack on the quality of life for others, and the quality of one's life is just as important, if not more so, than simply living. You deny immigrants who have already assimilated a better life based on their culture (at least you support doing so if you support the Swiss town in this occasion). This is simply not just.

As well, I want legitimate evidence that crime has been rising in Switzerland and that it is because of immigrants. AI, meet alternate causality.

Big fucking deal. That proves people are biased against immigrant.

Not necessarily - It might show resistance to integration: Cultural barrier is IMO *the* obstacle between an immigrant/refugee and success, not the skin color.

It takes a concious effort to become integrated to "decadent western white society", like concentrating on getting a good education, tackling language barrier seriously and treating the women, children and property in respectful manner.


For that matter, I've been beaten up by a romani once - while standing on queue I was surprised from behind - and got my wallet stolen by a black person, both few percent minorities here. Needless to say, I haven't run into similar problems with the ethnic majority here...

That proves people are biased against immigrants.And, why should they not be? US people are biased against Mexican immigrants. They even build walls to keep them out.

I suppose you're gonna say the higher conviction rate for black people in America is a result of black people being inherently criminal by nature?I suppose ghetto culture has its effects.

And, why should they not be? US people are biased against Mexican immigrants. They even build walls to keep them out.

I suppose ghetto culture has its effects.

Just because someone else does it doesn't make it just. You can look at my previous post on the last page if you want more.

A higher conviction rate as well as more severe punishment for petty crimes is what keeps blacks in jails, at least more so than any "ghetto culture". As well, what do you think is at the root of "ghetto culture"? What do you think caused it?

Is the bread store part of the communist system, whereby as long as I work, my bread will be taken care of? Dealing with capital is against my principles, and it would be great to know how to make the right arrangements without having to do so.

(Trying to make a slightly ridiculous point, but obviously I've no idea how the CPA actually works, so I've no idea how far I can push it...)

Like I said. You've got your "subsection." There are plenty of communists in the USA. Just because we don't have a communist economy doesn't change that. And the point was not that every subsection has achieved all of it's political goals but that there IS such a subsection, a place, for people in our society.

I dunno how the CPA works either, but I assume that they can agree that they are communists, even if the economic system is not ('yet') communist.

'course not. But, to the people to whom it does (namely, the members of the country), it's a great convenience. Particularly if it results in improved public services, lower taxes and convenience goods prices, crime reduction, childcare and lowered unemployment for the majority, which is what most people really care about when you get down to the gritty details.

Fascism - a great convenience.

Yes I'm aware of their position, but just because fear and laziness are understandable doesn't mean much.

And, why should they not be? US people are biased against Mexican immigrants. They even build walls to keep them out.


Both cases are examples of extreme ignorance, stupidity, and worthy of my complete disdain.


I suppose ghetto culture has its effects.

I suppose it's too much to expect you to go a single post without making some sort of bigoted nonsensical comment.

Not necessarily - It might show resistance to integration: Cultural barrier is IMO *the* obstacle between an immigrant/refugee and success, not the skin color.

If so, it shows resistence to integration on the part of the natives, not the immigrants.

The complaint however was that the immigrants weren't integrating, so TAI's example still sits impotent.

Don't be obtuse. Any reasonable and intelligent person would object to what these bigots are doing. Fortunately, the Swiss Supreme Court belongs to the category of the sane.

Sorry for the delay in response, I had to go to work for a while.

You are still throwing the word 'Bigot' around without any justification of the use of such a prejudicial term. I understand myself to be both reasonable and sane, and I am not objecting to a group of people wishing to decide for themselves who can join their group. The desire for self determination in this respect seems to be natural and normal to me. That an elitist subset within this group , i.e the supreme court, wish to determine for the other members of that group what is good for them, appears to me to be far more problematic, but it is something that you evidently approve of for some unexplained reason.


It implies exercising your right to cast a ballot in a responsible and informed manner. If you're too stupid to cast your vote on the basis of fact and reason, and do so instead on the basis of gut prejudice, then your ballot should be deemed worthless. Which appears to be the reasoning of the Swiss Supreme Court.

And who decides what is responsible and informed? No thank you, that way lies totalitarianism, as has been amply demonstrated throughout history. If citizenship implies the right to self determination, then it implies this for all citizens, or are you going to propose that Switzerland should introduce a caste type system where some citizens, on some arbitrary basis, are allocated more rights than others. That appears to be what you are doing.


I know your ideology balks at recognising that direct democracy means giving power to the uneducated and prejudiced masses, because your beliefs rest on the necessity of believing in the wisdom of the great majority of individuals. But I repeat what I said: There's a reason why States place limits on direct democracy. And that reason is a very good one.

It's the same reason why "the people" aren't allowed to rule that schools or buses should be segregated on the basis of race.

No you don't, you don't know what my ideology is, or what it balks at. You can not assume that simply because I am defending a position, it is one that derives from my personal ideology. What I am doing here is pointing out the hypocrisy of your position. You complain of elitism on one basis and argue that to avoid this you have to have elitism on another. I am simply saying that if you are to be democratic, then there is no room for elitism of any kind, be it racism or intellectual elitism as you propose. There is a reason why the state places limits on democracy, but the reason is the worst possible - preservation of the institutions of power contrary to the desires of the demos.
If the masses chose to discriminate on a racial basis, that is their choice. It is not pretty and I can not in any way find a justification for the masses so choosing. But I can defend the right of the people to self determination even if what they determine is an anathema to me.



That's not the issue, and you know it. The issue here is ethnic discrimination.


But it is the issue. No where in the article, or image associated with the article is it identified that the problem for these individuals is due to their race. It is purely due to their not being members of a group and wanting to be members of that group - the group being swiss citizens, not white or caucasian people.





No. Either you've misread, or you're being dishonest. The trend has been to approve applications by Western Europeans, and reject those of Eastern Europeans, Africans and other non-whites, despite them having successfully passed every other stringent citizenship test and requirement. They have been rejected purely on the basis of their origins, not just because they were foreign in an indistinct way.

Where is this affirmed, other than in your interpretation. Quote the text please. It simply is not there.

This is a case of people being model members of the community and being denied citizenship by a bunch of rednecks who have an irrational dislike of people with dark skin.

An unsubstantiated claim so far.



They should, yes. I'm glad that you agree with me on this point (whereby you're contradicting yourself). The fact is that the same rules did not apply to all non-citizens. The Supreme Court's ruling aimed at removing discrimination, and ensuring that the same rules could actually apply to all.

No contradiction whatsoever. Show me where I have presented contradictory points. No where is it show that the same rules are not applied to all regardless.

The Supreme court, simply wants to introduce its own discrimination in that they can decide who is to be a citizen, but other citizens can not.

It's childishly naive to argue that direct democracy should be allowed to flourish without limitations.

In your opinion (and mine as it happens, but that is not the issue I am arguing here. I am arguing that you have not shown that there is any racial discrimination going on here.)

And, why should they not be? US people are biased against Mexican immigrants. They even build walls to keep them out.

I suppose ghetto culture has its effects.

God damn it. There are so many things wrong with this tripe, but I'm going to sit back for now and let the others tear it apart.

If there were cases of Swiss people killing people under the guise of direct-democracy, then we'd have a real arguement. It's just that simple.


So we must wait until extra-judicial killings happen before we make laws for murder? Or that we must wait until there are abuses of power under governmental system before we implement safeguards?

Do you wear your seatbelt only after you get into an accident?

If we were to use past examples then, I simply point towards lynch mobs which are a very real historical precedent. Perhaps not known to have happened in Switzerland, but unless you are making an argument that they are not human, then there is a possibility that it may become so.

But you avoid the question. That of limits upon direct democracy. Either there are, or there are not.


If you have been there multiple times, you must have heard about the Albanians and other former Yugoslavs who start fights, create gangs..ect ect.

No, I can't say I have.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Switzerland

That's quite old, and things have only gotten much worse...so I'm looking for a newer source.

From your article


While the crime rate among resident foreigners is significantly higher (by a factor 3.7 counting convictions under criminal law in 2003), this is mainly due to the different demographic composition, the non-naturalized population consisting of a significantly higher ratio of young males (according to a statement issued by the federal statistics office in 1996)


To which I must then ask this. If the problem is caused by non-naturalization, and imbalanced ratio of young males, how exactly is further alienation and continuation of imbalance by restricting new immigrants going to solve it hmm? It seems to me that it will, if nothing else, exacerbate the problem.


No. it's not. It's common to know that a huge disproportionate ammount of the crime is commited by immigrants, notably WHITE immigrants from the Balkans. Also, the prison populations are disproportionately non-Swiss.


Which appear to be because of the reasons I mentioned above rather than merely because they are immigrants. Unless Switzerland seals its borders, denying citizenship based on country of origin will do nothing but make matters worse, and is at worse, hiding their heads in the sand.


Wrong. It's the left that advocates changing Switzerland. Entering the EU, opening borders, fighting against the SVP that is the defender of the Swiss nation and tradition, ect ect ect.

On this forum, only greed and death advocated change. Others have criticized, but not advocated any form of change. I speak of specifics, yet you point towards this hypothetical bogeyman known as the "left".

Is your point so weak that you must refer to cardboard characters to bolster it?

TAI, bringing in immigration crime statistics is utterly beside the point here.

First, if 0,6% of non-Swiss in Switzerland have been convicted of crimes or misdemeanours, how on Earth does that lead to arguing that all citizenship applications that don't come from Western Europeans should be turned down?

Second, you're deliberately misreading the article. The cases brought up here are those of people who have lived in Switzerland for at least 12 years, often much longer, sometimes their entire life, who have demonstrated that they are model members of the community, and who have passed Switzerland's stringent citizenship application tests. Then they were turned down by a bunch of bigots on the basis of their name and skin colour. These were not people who were likely to commit crimes. They were, in fact, far less likely to commit crimes than more or less anyone else. So your "point" really is utterly nonsensical.

Unless your point is to demonstrate that xenophobic bigots need to be educated?

It's right there with the absurd concept of "ethnic American"

One of our rare moments of agreement.


And ignore the rest of my post. How typical of you."

Actually I've dissected you at length when I felt others haven't done so. Here, matters are well in hand. I'm therefore content to sit back and watch you shredded.

Cara, pelo que eu me lembro, você não é brasileiro. Eu conheço nossas leis e você também, as de imigração ao menos. E, francamente, nosso sistema é bem melhor do que deixar um bando de animais pé-rapados decidir nosso futuro. Você tem cidadania aqui (acho) porque a Polícia Federal, com critérios lá dela, te deu. E tanto melhor, porque colocar sua cidadania nas mãos de um bando de ignorantes que não quereria um "gringo" aqui não ia ser bom.

I´ll reply in English so others have a chance of understanding (also it's easier for me after a couple of Antarctica Originals).
Yes I am an immigrant, but no I do not have Brazilian citizenship. This means that I get to pay taxes, provide services, educate my son, help people generally, spend money etc. all without acquiring any rights here whatsoever.
Am I complaining, no. I like it here, I live here by my own free choice. Does it bother me that I don't have Brazilian citizenship, no. Why should I have to have it.
It is not the Federal Police that decide to grant citizenship, it is the government and the people. To obtain citizenship my request would have to be published in the Diário Oficial which is then a mattrer of public record and to which any Brazilian citizen can object - effectively blocking my request. (Apparently you are not as 'up' on this aspect of Btrazilian law as I am, but I guess it does not particularly matter to you).
So here, as in Switzerland, any application for citizenship depends on a 'bando de ignorantes' except that it is actually worse. There it is a vote, with a majority verdict. Here it has to be unanimous - one 'não' prevents the process from continuing.

I suppose ghetto culture has its effects.
Agreed.
TAI, bringing in immigration crime statistics is utterly beside the point here.

First, if 0,6% of non-Swiss in Switzerland have been convicted of crimes or misdemeanours, how on Earth does that lead to arguing that all citizenship applications that don't come from Western Europeans should be turned down?

Second, you're deliberately misreading the article. The cases brought up here are those of people who have lived in Switzerland for at least 12 years, often much longer, sometimes their entire life, who have demonstrated that they are model members of the community, and who have passed Switzerland's stringent citizenship application tests. Then they were turned down by a bunch of bigots on the basis of their name and skin colour. These were not people who were likely to commit crimes. They were, in fact, far less likely to commit crimes than more or less anyone else. So your "point" really is utterly nonsensical.

Unless your point is to demonstrate that xenophobic bigots need to be educated?
My point is:

Collateral damage. The system needs to be in place to keep balance in the communities. If a few exceptions to the rule fall through the cracks, that is indeed unfortunate, but no system is perfect and in general I'd rather have a feel well suited people fall through the cracks than open the floodgates and let all the non-integratable people destory the social fabric of the society.

So we must wait until extra-judicial killings happen before we make laws for murder? Or that we must wait until there are abuses of power under governmental system before we implement safeguards?
But you're not arguing correctly, because a community voting (through direct democracy) to kill someone is illegal in Switzerland because it's murder, but voting on the social make up of their community is LEGAL because it's allowed and doesn't physically harm that person's body.


No, I can't say I have.
lol, did you not leave the hotel? Next time, go out somewhere at night where there will be immigrants and you'll see exact the problem, that is, unless a Swiss doesn't warn you first NOT to go there.



To which I must then ask this. If the problem is caused by non-naturalization, and imbalanced ratio of young males, how exactly is further alienation and continuation of imbalance by restricting new immigrants going to solve it hmm? It seems to me that it will, if nothing else, exacerbate the problem.


Which appear to be because of the reasons I mentioned above rather than merely because they are immigrants. Unless Switzerland seals its borders, denying citizenship based on country of origin will do nothing but make matters worse, and is at worse, hiding their heads in the sand.
The solution is deportation of criminal elements of society, strict overhaul of the immigration system, and intensive selection of who is integratable and who is not.


On this forum, only greed and death advocated change. Others have criticized, but not advocated any form of change. I speak of specifics, yet you point towards this hypothetical bogeyman known as the "left".

Is your point so weak that you must refer to cardboard characters to bolster it?
Here I'll admit a mistake. I meant the Swiss left, as they are (quite publicly) going about trying to fight for those causes that I mentoined before. Put the "Swiss Left" into my previous statement, and it will make sense.

I´ll reply in English so others have a chance of understanding (also it's easier for me after a couple of Antarctica Originals).
Yes I am an immigrant, but no I do not have Brazilian citizenship. This means that I get to pay taxes, provide services, educate my son, help people generally, spend money etc. all without acquiring any rights here whatsoever.
Am I complaining, no. I like it here, I live here by my own free choice. Does it bother me that I don't have Brazilian citizenship, no. Why should I have to have it.
It is not the Federal Police that decide to grant citizenship, it is the government and the people. To obtain citizenship my request would have to be published in the Diário Oficial which is then a mattrer of public record and to which any Brazilian citizen can object - effectively blocking my request. (Apparently you are not as 'up' on this aspect of Btrazilian law as I am, but I guess it does not particularly matter to you).
So here, as in Switzerland, any application for citizenship depends on a 'bando de ignorantes' except that it is actually worse. There it is a vote, with a majority verdict. Here it has to be unanimous - one 'não' prevents the process from continuing.

I don't know that anyone here would read the Diário Oficial and try to block others like that. In Switzerland it's way more out in the open. Plus I'm pretty sure you'd get to question this in other ways, no? Or I can screw with anyone here so long as that person's foreign by blocking them judicially?

And mind you, you DO have rights without citizenship. Your life, property, expression, due process law and so on, are just as protected. This much is granted by the Constitution here.

You are still throwing the word 'Bigot' around without any justification of the use of such a prejudicial term.


"I don't like you because your skin is black."

"I don't like you because your name suggests you come from Eastern Europe."

No, no bigotry there...


I understand myself to be both reasonable and sane, and I am not objecting to a group of people wishing to decide for themselves who can join their group. The desire for self determination in this respect seems to be natural and normal to me. That an elitist subset within this group , i.e the supreme court, wish to determine for the other members of that group what is good for them, appears to me to be far more problematic, but it is something that you evidently approve of for some unexplained reason.


There is nothing "élitist" about the Supreme Court. And I don't care about what is "good" for bigots. People have a right to hold racist beliefs, objectionable as I find them. They should not have a right to impose those racist beliefs on society. Does "tyranny of the majority" mean nothing to you?


And who decides what is responsible and informed?


Oh, please. Exclusion on the basis of race is not "responsible and informed" behaviour.


No thank you, that way lies totalitarianism, as has been amply demonstrated throughout history.

Don't be absurd. That's a wild and unsubstantiated leap. Unless you're seriously arguing that there is nothing in between anarchy and totalitarianism.


If citizenship implies the right to self determination, then it implies this for all citizens, or are you going to propose that Switzerland should introduce a caste type system where some citizens, on some arbitrary basis, are allocated more rights than others. That appears to be what you are doing.


I am, am I? Explain, please.


What I am doing here is pointing out the hypocrisy of your position. You complain of elitism on one basis and argue that to avoid this you have to have elitism on another.

When did I complain about elistism? I did no such thing.


I am simply saying that if you are to be democratic, then there is no room for elitism of any kind, be it racism or intellectual elitism as you propose.


What a frightening thought. "No room for intellectual elitism"? How does that translate into society? Close the universities, shred books and burn down a few museums?

Plus, you're contradicting yourself. "If people want to impose racism on society, that is their right. There is no place for racism in society." What?


There is a reason why the state places limits on democracy, but the reason is the worst possible - preservation of the institutions of power contrary to the desires of the demos.
If the masses chose to discriminate on a racial basis, that is their choice. It is not pretty and I can not in any way find a justification for the masses so choosing. But I can defend the right of the people to self determination even if what they determine is an anathema to me.

Well I can't. I find your views on this matter ridiculously simplistic, grossly irresponsible, and, to be bluntly honest, a form of intellectual laziness. I seem to remember that in the old days you were rather more nuanced. Maybe I recall incorrectly.


But it is the issue. No where in the article, or image associated with the article is it identified that the problem for these individuals is due to their race. It is purely due to their not being members of a group and wanting to be members of that group - the group being swiss citizens, not white or caucasian people.


From the article: "In towns which used the ballot system, candidates from Turkey, the former Yugoslavia and Africa were regularly rejected, despite having satisfied all the requirements for naturalisation, while those from Western Europe were approved."

Also, the Supreme Court acted in response to what it identified as discrimination.


No contradiction whatsoever. Show me where I have presented contradictory points. No where is it show that the same rules are not applied to all regardless.


Yes it is, as I've just shown. It's written very clearly in the article.


The Supreme court, simply wants to introduce its own discrimination in that they can decide who is to be a citizen, but other citizens can not.


Rubbish, for two reasons. First, it's still giving citizens significant latitude to decide. Second, laws deciding in place of random bigots is not "discrimination" - unless you twist that word so far as to empty it of all substance.

The problem with your ideology, as I've said, is that it's absurdly simplistic. You're basically saying: "Abolishing the State, let every random idiot do whatever he wants with no laws to get in his way, and let's all pretend that's not going to lead to very nasty consequences."

My point is:

Collateral damage. The system needs to be in place to keep balance in the communities. If a few exceptions to the rule fall through the cracks, that is indeed unfortunate, but no system is perfect and in general I'd rather have a feel well suited people fall through the cracks than open the floodgates and let all the non-integratable people destory the social fabric of the society.


But the Swiss systems is already very strict. Applicants have to have resided in Switzerland for 12 years and have to submit to tests to prove that they are already integrated before they are granted citizenship. It's not as if these applicants were unknown quantities fresh across the border. Nobody is talking about opening the floodgates.

I'd wait to see if it gets voted in before you call all of Switzerland racists - it'll probably fail.

I'd wait to see if it gets voted in before you call all of Switzerland racists - it'll probably fail.

I hope so, but I don't think anyone here is saying that all in Switzerland are racist.

SVP? Oh fuck yes.

I hope so, but I don't think anyone here is saying that all in Switzerland are racist.
Aye, s'true.
SVP? Oh fuck yes.
Damn right.

Question: why the hell would someone INSIST on staying someplace where the indigenous population has made a point not only of declining to make them citizens but singled them out for ridicule and humiliation? Tell them to go fuck themselves and move someplace more welcoming.
Because it's where they were raised? Because when you've spent more than 12 of your 20 years in a place, you feel that it's home?

I don't know about everyone else, but I would fight for my right to stay in my homeland, and be granted the legal rights that I feel I would be entitled to.

In fact, many in the SVP make no secret of this. For member of parliament Peter Foehn, discrimination is not a problem, as long as people have the right to vote.
That statement is problematic, and I strongly disagree with it. That would be an example of a tyrrany by majority that I would oppose.


This is the same thing that happend with the SVP had the poster kicking out the black sheep and people said "The SVP wants to kick blacks out of the country", where as (I know that sounds so nice and convienent for leftists) in reality, most immigration problems and immigration reforms are directed at Balkan immigrants, that is White European immigrants. However, leftists fools are quick to forget that because it doesn't work well with their "the SVP hates black people" 'arguement'.
...while non-"leftists" non-fools can quickly point out that it would be more correct to say "The SVP hates immigrants and are extremely xenophobic."

That's what you meant, right?

2. There is nothing wrong with a community discriminating who they feel is culturally assimilable into their society.
There wery well can be something wrong with that. It all depends on what they base their decision.

And when they're voted down and given no reason, I see the danger of it happening for the wrong reasons.

Communities in Switzerland have always had the right to decide want they want in their community, thus is the essence of the Swiss direct democract tradition. The supreme court is wrong, and are trying to override the sovereignty of the swiss communities.
They're not wrong. You may disagree with them, but were not wrong five years ago, when they gave them the right to appeal, be given reasons for the decision, and outlawed a discriminatory system.

Direct Democray IS Switzerland, and Switzerland is a direct democracy. To say "we need to change that" simply because you are too weak to stomach the outcome of what people decide for their own community, is simply, well, hypocritical and weak. A community has the right to decide how other people in that community live. If not, the idea of tax raises and tax decreases, would also be wrong.
Bullshit and nonsense. Why should we stomach discrimination and bigotry? Why shouln't we speak out against a broken system?

It's a very peaceful country, indeed the immigrants are the ones bringing in the crime
So... there were no crime before immigration? I don't believe that at all.

Next time, take some time to realise what you are talking about. You can't just support democracy when it suits your exact political views and then don't when it doesn't. Direct Democracy is amongst the more fair and ideal political systems in the world, it just doesn't work in most soceties. In Switzerland it does, and I'll be damned if a few leftists will change that just to bring the country in line with the woes of the rest of the world.
Noes! We can't disagree with the type of democracy being employed in a country, because TAI will get upset!

Perhaps the EU should show the Swiss what it's like to live under the tyranny of a majority by closing all borders with Switzerland until they do whatever the EU says. I'm pretty damn sure Switzerland is a net importer of food or at least oil.

But anyway, all the arguments about whether a group is integrated into Swiss society is pointless. These applicants not only passed stringent tests, but have been living in the country for at least 12 years and in some cases all their lives. Perhaps if this was about a vote as to whether to allow people to immigrate into the town/village then I might be more sympathetic. But it's not. What it is about is granting legal rights to a legal-underclass of society. It's akin to indentured servitude and is disgraceful.

My point is:

Collateral damage. The system needs to be in place to keep balance in the communities. If a few exceptions to the rule fall through the cracks, that is indeed unfortunate, but no system is perfect and in general I'd rather have a feel well suited people fall through the cracks than open the floodgates and let all the non-integratable people destory the social fabric of the society.
...and is there any indication, any indication whatsoever, that removing the voting but keeping the rather restrictive rules on getting citizenship, in any way, shape or form, will do anything even close to opening the floodgates?

Please provide that evidence.


Oh, and while you're at it, please show how the two people in the article were non-integratable people who could destory the social fabric of the society - you know, since they were turned down through voting they surely must have been? No?

Perhaps the EU should show the Swiss what it's like to live under the tyranny of a majority by closing all borders with Switzerland until they do whatever the EU says. I'm pretty damn sure Switzerland is a net importer of food or at least oil.

But anyway, all the arguments about whether a group is integrated into Swiss society is pointless. These applicants not only passed stringent tests, but have been living in the country for at least 12 years and in some cases all their lives. Perhaps if this was about a vote as to whether to allow people to immigrate into the town/village then I might be more sympathetic. But it's not. What it is about is granting legal rights to a legal-underclass of society. It's akin to indentured servitude and is disgraceful.

I wonder what would happen to the EU when the swiss close your accounts???

Needless to say the Us will gladly Airlift oil and food to Switzerland in exchange for all EU accounts held in swiss banks.

My point is:

Collateral damage. The system needs to be in place to keep balance in the communities. If a few exceptions to the rule fall through the cracks, that is indeed unfortunate, but no system is perfect and in general I'd rather have a feel well suited people fall through the cracks than open the floodgates and let all the non-integratable people destory the social fabric of the society.
On that note, we should just go back to vigilates and lynch mobs to sort out crime. Sure, a few innocents might be executed, but when it comes to immigrants comiong over here and committing crime (of course, something no indigenous person would do) you have to break a few eggs to make an omlette, right?

Regardless of where you stand on immigration and citizenship, liberal or restrictive, discrimination based on race and religion, which this system panders to, cannot be tolerated. Criteria for citizenship or residency should be as objective as possible and based on personal qualities, something that a town hall, for the most part, simply won't do. We know this. That's why most democracies have bills, charters, declarations or statutes granting people rights that cannot be violated by a simple majority.

The right not to be discriminated againsed based on race or religion is inalienable, and as such, I see no reason how 'collateral damage' can or should be tolerated, or even legal, in any country which protects its citizens from the whims of a majority, that is to say, any civilised democracy.

On that note, we should just go back to vigilates and lynch mobs to sort out crime. Sure, a few innocents might be executed, but when it comes to immigrants comiong over here and committing crime (of course, something no indigenous person would do) you have to break a few eggs to make an omlette, right?

Regardless of where you stand on immigration and citizenship, liberal or restrictive, discrimination based on race and religion, which this system panders to, cannot be tolerated. Criteria for citizenship or residency should be as objective as possible and based on personal qualities, something that a town hall, for the most part, simply won't do. We know this. That's why most democracies have bills, charters, declarations or statutes granting people rights that cannot be violated by a simple majority.

The right not to be discriminated againsed based on race or religion is inalienable, and as such, I see no reason how 'collateral damage' can or should be tolerated, or even legal, in any country which protects its citizens from the whims of a majority, that is to say, any civilised democracy.
*Agrees*

Next time, take some time to realise what you are talking about. You can't just support democracy when it suits your exact political views and then don't when it doesn't.
Aye, this is why I don't support it full stop.

Maybe if they listed "Plant" instead of their normal ethnicity they'd automatically be granted citizenship.

"Plant", you say?

http://bishounen.info/vash/vash1.jpg

"Plant", you say?

http://bishounen.info/vash/vash1.jpg
Eh, Trigun. Good times. In the second part of the series, which is quite deep and good, rather than the first bit which is a bit pish, mostly because the Japanese sense of humour is different to mine.

I'd do it to make the point that I'm staying and that I know I'm bothering them. I'd do it to make a point of power, to rub it in the collective faces of these unpeople that they can do nothing to prevent me from being where I please. I'd further make a point of pointing and laughing at each and every one of them whenever their kids got a bad grade, their relatives died in a car accident, and so on and so forth. Because racists are not people. They don't get to vote, they don't get not to be offended and I find it generous that they get to breathe.

Different strokes for different folks -- but why place yourself in a situation where you need to be pissed off and treated like shit every day when there are millions of other places that would say, "Come join us!"

hey the cost of swiss cheese has gone up 30%.
We need to make sure they are not artificially lowering production to control the price.

The cost of everything has gone up because the cost of shipping has risen with the cost of gasoline.

Different strokes for different folks -- but why place yourself in a situation where you need to be pissed off and treated like shit every day when there are millions of other places that would say, "Come join us!"
Quite. If you're in Switzerland, you could always move to Germany which has alright citizenship laws, and once yer in the EU, then go to somewhere better like, eh, the UK or something.

Quite. If you're in Switzerland, you could always move to Germany which has alright citizenship laws, and once yer in the EU, then go to somewhere better like, eh, the UK or something.

Hey, Switzerland isn't that bad. :p

In the end, the voters will decide whether they'll keep the rights to reject applicants for citizenship, or to give up these rights. Contrary to whatever propa... I mean electoral advertisement is being spread, a positive outcome will NOT mean that from now on, every foreigner will be sent back. It would be appopriate to inform yourself about the law you're insulting each and every supporter of before you start the online revolution against whatever you see unfit for your personal utopia.

The law the SVP wants to pass declares that every city, town and village may decide, which instance will have the last word in the matter of granting citizenship. Left-wing communities, such as Bern, Basel and the entire French-speaking Switzerland will remain havens for every foreigner desiring citizenship. Those areas probably won't institute popular votes for citizenships. The only communities that DO have this practice are villages in the German-speaking part, and there aren't even that many of them.

The reason why this law is in its last stage of being passed (or rejected), is that larger communities, especially in Northeastern Switzerland, including Zürich (which is, by chance, THE industrial and economic powerhouse of the country), have been experiencing a large influx of immigrants and a rise of crime associated with these immigrants. And this is the reaction of the Swiss.

I am a foreigner living in Switzerland. I don't have the citizenship yet. And I don't care whether they pass this law or not. If they pass it, I may get the citizenship, in which case I'll like the Swiss even more (since they gave it to me freely) and if I don't get it, I'll know that it'll probably be better if I wouldn't settle here. The world is a big place and whoever said that "if they feel at home, they shouldn't be rejected" was talking out of her/his ass. If you're rejected, you don't feel at home, do you now? The sensible thing is to go somewhere else (no need leaving the country) and the rebellious thing is to stay although you're hated and everyone else is a moron (doesn't do anyone any good, because the days of the thought police are over - contrary to popular belief. You can't make anyone like you or anyone else).

There is no paradise to be found in politics (RL <> Nationstates), there is no firm stance to be found in governments, only extreme decisions that swing the door in a certain direction. It never stays still. The meaning of good and bad is not only based on personal ideas (racism is bad, but it's not necessarily racism just because you say so - hear both sides of the story first). While rejecting this law would be good for most immigrants, it would be bad for the majority of the Swiss, as well as certain other immigrants who will only feel the backlash of the angry Swiss population.

You seem like you believe in a world, where expressing one's negative opinion must be severely dealt with and the majority of the populace must be forced to smile, even if they don't feel like it. It's true that in such a world, you would only see people smiling at you, but you will never know whether it's genuine or whether they'll stab you in the back. Because every case of restricting one's freedom is only going to make one pissed off at the system.

What if a township decided to have weekly lynchings, and the unfortunate victims are picked by ballot?

Would that be "changing the rules" if the courts disallowed it?

No, because the right to do so has not been given to the people. The people HAVE been given the right to vote on whether someone in their area gets citizenship - and then the Supreme Court changed the rules to try and influence those votes. I can't think of a more egregious abuse of power by a court anywhere in the civilized world.


After all, the citizenship process set by the government already has a whole set of standards which should mean anyone passing them should be accepted. Yet these people are going around and thumbing their nose at the laws. Why have the standards in the first place then, if the people, who apparently need no standards of their own to pass, are the ones who have final say?

Quite so. The general populace should NOT have any say in such cases. Mob rule benefits neither those subject to it nor to the mob itself.

However, that is NOT any court's decision to make. Courts exist to interpret law, NEVER to make it.

And particularly, they have no place in deliberately attempting to force a free vote to their desired result.

Hey, Switzerland isn't that bad. :p
It's not that great if you're an immigrant, seeing as they have a pretty Gastarbeiter-esque style of life.

And, why should they not be? US people are biased against Mexican immigrants. They even build walls to keep them out.

When they don't come through airports, with proper identification and passports, of course. We send back people who come smuggled in containers from Asia too. We do it to Canadians, and Australians, and Europeans too -- but then, mentioning that doesn't fit in with your agenda, does it?

It's ILLEGAL immigration that the US is against -- get your Visa and your papers and you're more than welcome.

Quite. If you're in Switzerland, you could always move to Germany which has alright citizenship laws, and once yer in the EU, then go to somewhere better like, eh, the UK or something.

Or, as already noted, to a larger town that doesn't do this shit -- and then if you really MUST live in that tiny village, move back there with citizenship in hand.

Eh, Trigun. Good times. In the second part of the series, which is quite deep and good, rather than the first bit which is a bit pish, mostly because the Japanese sense of humour is different to mine.
It's more a sort of "Awwwwww :D" than a "Hahaha :D" sort of contextual humour. As the following will demonstrate:

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/7854/gif4fo.gif

It's more a sort of "Awwwwww :D" than a "Hahaha :D" sort of contextual humour. As the following will demonstrate:
Aye, is for teenage girls mainly :p

However, that is NOT any court's decision to make. Courts exist to interpret law, NEVER to make it.

And they didn't do that in this case...

I wonder what would happen to the EU when the swiss close your accounts???

Needless to say the Us will gladly Airlift oil and food to Switzerland in exchange for all EU accounts held in swiss banks.Well done, respond to pointless musing with more pointless musing and completely miss the main point of the post.

In the end, the voters will decide whether they'll keep the rights to reject applicants for citizenship, or to give up these rights. Contrary to whatever propa... I mean electoral advertisement is being spread, a positive outcome will NOT mean that from now on, every foreigner will be sent back. It would be appopriate to inform yourself about the law you're insulting each and every supporter of before you start the online revolution against whatever you see unfit for your personal utopia.

The law the SVP wants to pass declares that every city, town and village may decide, which instance will have the last word in the matter of granting citizenship. Left-wing communities, such as Bern, Basel and the entire French-speaking Switzerland will remain havens for every foreigner desiring citizenship. Those areas probably won't institute popular votes for citizenships. The only communities that DO have this practice are villages in the German-speaking part, and there aren't even that many of them.

The reason why this law is in its last stage of being passed (or rejected), is that larger communities, especially in Northeastern Switzerland, including Zürich (which is, by chance, THE industrial and economic powerhouse of the country), have been experiencing a large influx of immigrants and a rise of crime associated with these immigrants. And this is the reaction of the Swiss.

I am a foreigner living in Switzerland. I don't have the citizenship yet. And I don't care whether they pass this law or not. If they pass it, I may get the citizenship, in which case I'll like the Swiss even more (since they gave it to me freely) and if I don't get it, I'll know that it'll probably be better if I wouldn't settle here. The world is a big place and whoever said that "if they feel at home, they shouldn't be rejected" was talking out of her/his ass. If you're rejected, you don't feel at home, do you now? The sensible thing is to go somewhere else (no need leaving the country) and the rebellious thing is to stay although you're hated and everyone else is a moron (doesn't do anyone any good, because the days of the thought police are over - contrary to popular belief. You can't make anyone like you or anyone else).

There is no paradise to be found in politics (RL <> Nationstates), there is no firm stance to be found in governments, only extreme decisions that swing the door in a certain direction. It never stays still. The meaning of good and bad is not only based on personal ideas (racism is bad, but it's not necessarily racism just because you say so - hear both sides of the story first). While rejecting this law would be good for most immigrants, it would be bad for the majority of the Swiss, as well as certain other immigrants who will only feel the backlash of the angry Swiss population.

You seem like you believe in a world, where expressing one's negative opinion must be severely dealt with and the majority of the populace must be forced to smile, even if they don't feel like it. It's true that in such a world, you would only see people smiling at you, but you will never know whether it's genuine or whether they'll stab you in the back. Because every case of restricting one's freedom is only going to make one pissed off at the system.

Jo, uusgezeichnet! Wo wohnsch genau? Ich gange ga ässe abr spöter chommi zrügg.

Screw that noise, and screw those racists and their worthless beliefs and ideals! This is a clear-cut case of tyranny by majority, and it needs to be swiftly put down.

Racism has never done any good for society.

Way to spit on democracy! Democracy is more important than your opinion when compared to the many.

And they didn't do that in this case...

Indeed, they did. The court forbade secret ballots, where prior the decision had been left to the town involved. They did this expressly because they did not like the results.

They effectively changed the law to one they felt would result in results they preferred. Had they said the law enabling local participation was unconstitutional, I would have no problem with that. What they did was to change the law to say what they think it should say. And in doing so usurped the powers of the legislature.

Way to spit on democracy! Democracy is more important than your opinion when compared to the many.

You mean like how the U.S. clamped down on the Palestinians when Hamas legitimately won elections?

It's true. 500 years on and the Romani (gypsies) are still 3rd class citizens all over Europe.

Thats because (Basing this on gypsies in Britain) they detract from society.

They do far more harm to the local community and the region than they ever give back.

Different strokes for different folks -- but why place yourself in a situation where you need to be pissed off and treated like shit every day when there are millions of other places that would say, "Come join us!"

Mainly because I'm spite-empowered. ;)

Jo, uusgezeichnet! Wo wohnsch genau? Ich gange ga ässe abr spöter chommi zrügg.

Stadt St. Gallä :cool:

Indeed, they did. The court forbade secret ballots, where prior the decision had been left to the town involved. They did this expressly because they did not like the results.

They effectively changed the law to one they felt would result in results they preferred. Had they said the law enabling local participation was unconstitutional, I would have no problem with that. What they did was to change the law to say what they think it should say. And in doing so usurped the powers of the legislature.

I'm glad you put in the bolded part because... Well... the courts did find it unconstitutional:
Switzerland’s Federal Court has ruled against a proposal to subject citizenship applications by foreigners to the public vote.

The ruling came as Switzerland's highest court also upheld an appeal by five applicants whose requests for Swiss citzenship were rejected in a popular vote in canton Lucerne.

The court ordered a review of the applications, which were turned down by the citizens of Emmen, an industrial suburb of Lucerne, in March 2000.

It said the applicants, all Yugoslav nationals, were victims of discrimination and that their constitutional rights were violated.

The people of Emmen won the right to vote on applications for citizenship in 1999.

Since then, 97 people have had their applications rejected. In 2000 alone, 39 out of 57 citizenship requests were rejected by Emmen voters.

Popular vote
Earlier on Wednesday, the court rejected as unconstitutional a proposal by the rightwing Swiss People’s Party to introduce a similar citizenship vote in Zurich.

It ruled that placing decisions on citizenship in voters’ hands contravened the federal constitution, as applicants had the right to present their cases and to be given reasons for refusal.

Hans Geser, a professor of sociology at Zurich University and an expert on local politics, says the system of using the popular vote on issues touching on human rights is unworkable, because a certain amount of regulation is required.

"This issue shows the limits to all decisions made by majority rule, because… a majority decision isn't based on rules, it doesn't have to be justified. It is its own justification," he told swissinfo.
Article from 2003 (http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/index.html?siteSect=105&sid=4021512)

So they interpreted the constitution and the law, and found that it was discriminatory and lacking in basic safeguards. They didn't create a new law.

And they did it because they didn't like the results and the method itself, seeing as how both were discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Well done, respond to pointless musing with more pointless musing and completely miss the main point of the post.

you missed my point.
There are plenty of people willing to sell out on principle for money.

I'm glad you put in the bolded part because... Well... the courts did find it unconstitutional:

Article from 2003 (http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/index.html?siteSect=105&sid=4021512)

So they interpreted the constitution and the law, and found that it was discriminatory and lacking in basic safeguards. They didn't create a new law.

And they did it because they didn't like the results and the method itself, seeing as how both were discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Now, THAT I have no problem with (and in fact I applaud the decision as a triumph of reason). But the idea of a court changing the rules on a ballot in order to bias the results is still really unpleasent to me.

Now, THAT I have no problem with (and in fact I applaud the decision as a triumph of reason). But the idea of a court changing the rules on a ballot in order to bias the results is still really unpleasent to me.

Quite. I still can't see that applying in this case though.

If so, it shows resistence to integration on the part of the natives, not the immigrants.

The complaint however was that the immigrants weren't integrating, so TAI's example still sits impotent.

IMO they aren't integrating because they want to hang on to their incompatible culture.

They APPARENTLY don't value education, women or society as highly as we do: Burkhas or hereditary teachings are NOT the key for integration.

I don't see the resistance being dependent of religion, ethnicity or skin color per se, it is the willingness to embrace the key ideals of the society and live by them. For comparison the Tatars here - primarily muslim Turkic people - have integrated themselves fully into our society. On the otherhand most of the Romanis have stuck to their incompatible culture and refuse to embrace the ideals rest of the society sees as...necessary.

Unemployement, crime rate, etc.. are IMO only side effects of the cultural trends: When you don't value education or women's rights then unemployment rate of 75% is to be expected (~half of men, all of women) as is isolation - outcasts - from the rest of the society.

Note: This is a specific Nordic viewpoint to the issue of minorities - It doesn't necessarily apply across Europe, let alone the world.

Way to spit on democracy! Democracy is more important than your opinion when compared to the many.

What, so people should be allowed to discriminate against immigrants simply because the the immigrants are outnumbered? That's ridiculous! Sometimes a democratic government has to put some limits in place in order to prevent injustice.

Back again

"I don't like you because your skin is black."

"I don't like you because your name suggests you come from Eastern Europe."

No, no bigotry there...

Where is anything said about the people concerned not being liked. What happened is that they were not granted citizenship. They were not hounded out of town, ostracised, persecuted or in any other way shown that they were disliked.

If you could show me that these people were not liked just because they came from Eastern Europe, then yes you could justifiably use the term bigot, but that has not been shown.

What is not discussed here is why these people want citizenship. If you look to my reply to Heikoku you will see that I am not a citizen of the country where I live. This makes little difference, unless I want to obtain some specific benefits. In Switzerland citizenship also implies a collection of strict duties (military service is required of all citizens there). So why do these people want citizenship?



There is nothing "élitist" about the Supreme Court.

LOL

And I don't care about what is "good" for bigots. People have a right to hold racist beliefs, objectionable as I find them. They should not have a right to impose those racist beliefs on society. Does "tyranny of the majority" mean nothing to you?

Society consists of the people in it. If those people are racist then the society will be racist. You don't have to like that, and you can leave o r try to change the people. What you can not do, without being utterly hypocritical, is to determine that despite the position of the people, the society has to conform to the mores that you find acceptable.
That is a general point though. You still have not shown that there are racist beliefs at work in this case. There is, very probably, xenophobia at work, but that is not racism.



Oh, please. Exclusion on the basis of race is not "responsible and informed" behaviour.

Prove that the exclusion is on the basis of race. It is not there in the text you presented. Yet again you repeat the accusation without demonstrating your point. I asked you to quote the text, you have not done so.


Don't be absurd. That's a wild and unsubstantiated leap. Unless you're seriously arguing that there is nothing in between anarchy and totalitarianism.

The point I am making you are failing to understand completely. It is far from a wild and unsubstantiated claim. As soon as you start to allow an elite, of any type, to determine what is and is not acceptable behaviour and thinking for the majority, you are instituting authoritarianism. (There is an authority - the elite - that determines and there are the rest who are obliged to obey). What you can do is to persuade the majority that your way of thinking is correct, but you can not, under any circumstances, impose this on them.



When did I complain about elitism? I did no such thing. If you do not recognise that racism is a form of elitism (we are better than you because we are of this race and you are not) then there is little point continuing this discussion.



What a frightening thought. "No room for intellectual elitism"? How does that translate into society? Close the universities, shred books and burn down a few museums?

Nothing against the intellectuals at all, I am opposed to elitism, just that. If the intellectual wants to say that the non intellectual should not have the same rights as the intellectual then I have a problem. So no need to close down universities, shred books or burn down museums, just don't try to use the familiarity with these acoutrements as an excuse for elitism. Democracy depends upon the notion of all citizens being equal with respect to their rights and duties. You seem to want to remove this basic pillar of the concept. Do that and democracy fails completely.


Plus, you're contradicting yourself. "If people want to impose racism on society, that is their right. There is no place for racism in society." What?
Go back and read my post again. What I said is that if the members of a society hold a beliefs such that they constitute that society as a racist one, then that is their right. I did not say that it was their right to IMPOSE this on a society. Perhaps the difference between constituting a group in a manner and imposing a manner on a group escapes you. This difference is essential. The society is nothing more then the result (unplanned) of the behaviours and beliefs of the members of the society. If that result is a racist society, then that reflects the behaviours and beliefs of the members, and as such is democratic. (No one said democracy was nice). If, however a small sub set of the members of a society try to forcibly determine the beliefs and behaviours of the membership in general through the use of the apparatus of state (the supreme court in this case) then that is in no way democratic. I hope that is clear.



Well I can't. I find your views on this matter ridiculously simplistic, grossly irresponsible, and, to be bluntly honest, a form of intellectual laziness. I seem to remember that in the old days you were rather more nuanced. Maybe I recall incorrectly.

I am still the same person, it simply seems to be the case that you have not grasped the basic point that I am trying to make. Perhaps it is because I no longer have as much time to discuss such matters and am a little out of practice. That you feel that you have the right to impose your beliefs on others is something that I simply can not understand. That you believe the others to be wrong I accept and I even agree with, that they should be encouraged to change their way of thinking I would support completely. That they should have their rights removed because they do not think as you do is a position that I have to oppose, and I am doing so. If you find this simplistic, then explain to me what subtlety I have missed in your position of determining what they have to believe. Irresponsible - huh? What responsibility am I failing? That of agreeing with the intelligentia? It is far from intellectual laziness. It is would be so much less effort to do as the majority have done and say "How horrible - nasty Swiss people". No I do not think you recall incorrectly, it is just that we have most often been on the same side in such discussions. This time, it seems to me, you have allowed an emotional reaction to cloud your perception of the situation a little too much. But, hey, that is just my opinion.



From the article: "In towns which used the ballot system, candidates from Turkey, the former Yugoslavia and Africa were regularly rejected, despite having satisfied all the requirements for naturalisation, while those from Western Europe were approved."

Also, the Supreme Court acted in response to what it identified as discrimination.

So some candidates were rejected, but not all - or at least it does not say so. Nor does it say why they were rejected. The BBC has failed badly here. It has presented the reader with what appears to be an argument when there is actually nothing solid there at all. If it were the case that all candidates from "Turkey, the former Yugoslavia and Africa" had been rejected do you not think that the article would have said this? Equally if it were the case that none of the Western Europeans had been rejected then would the article not have made this clear too. The article is very very vague on this point.

On what basis did the Supreme court identify the discrimination.



Yes it is, as I've just shown. It's written very clearly in the article.

And as I have just shown, the article is not at all clear on this.

Additionally, you are using the term racist. Nothing in the article refers to race. It refers to nationalities, countries of origin etc. Where is the contention that person A was not granted citizenship because they are non caucasian?
I can accept that there is xenophobia at work, but that is not racism, nor is it bigotry. Most people are xenophobic, it is part of the basic human condition, to trust those you know and not those you don't. This does not make it right, but it does describe the normal circumstances in a society.



Rubbish, for two reasons. First, it's still giving citizens significant latitude to decide. Second, laws deciding in place of random bigots is not "discrimination" - unless you twist that word so far as to empty it of all substance.

The problem with your ideology, as I've said, is that it's absurdly simplistic. You're basically saying: "Abolishing the State, let every random idiot do whatever he wants with no laws to get in his way, and let's all pretend that's not going to lead to very nasty consequences."

You don't have to agree with the logical consequences of what you have said, they exist regardless.

It is giving the citizens latitude to decide within the limits of what it says they can decide.

OK, so you can eat anything you like for dinner, so long as you have either rice, pasta or potatoes, some green vegetables and some protein. Sure you have latitude to decide - so long as you obey.

I have no problem with laws deciding, but here it is not the law, it is the supreme court - a collection of random bigots if you will, bigots who do not consider the citizens they represent to be capable of making a correct decision (correct that is in the eyes of the court).


The state is the instrument of the people, do not forget that. It's role should be to serve the people, protect their way of life and preserve their values and interests. I am not advocating here the abolition of the state, I am simply advocating that it should not try to go beyond its purpose or authority.

To conclude - I personally find it abhorrent that there exist societies that wish to exclude outsiders from membership. However these societies have as much right to exist as any other that does not infringe on basic human rights. One of those basic rights is the right to self determination - and I see it as a far greater wrong to preempt this basic right in order to provide access to that society for outsiders. If you do not, then we have to disagree.

SWITZERLAND
Issues of citizenship and direct democracy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7427865.stm)
Quite an interesting article, on how letting citizens decide on whether a person should become a citizen simply leads to dark-skinned applicants being rejected, even when they meet all the other requirements for citizenship and pass stringent tests. It seems racism is alive and well in Switzerland, alas. And it points to the problem of having too few limitations on the direct political power wielded by citizens.

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/7445/tbdzd0.png

Never would have thought the Swiss would be the ones who do this.

Never would have thought the Swiss would be the ones who do this.
Eh, their largest party of the hard right got 30% in the last elections, and women only got the vote about 15 years ago in a few of the cantons.

Eh, their largest party of the hard right got 30% in the last elections, and women only got the vote about 15 years ago in a few of the cantons.

I honestly did not know that.

Silly Swiss.

But you're not arguing correctly, because a community voting (through direct democracy) to kill someone is illegal in Switzerland because it's murder, but voting on the social make up of their community is LEGAL because it's allowed and doesn't physically harm that person's body.

This is a red herring. If it is allowed, by implication, it is legal. If it is legal to give mob rule the right to overturn government standards, then there really isn't that much standing between turning murder into killing.


lol, did you not leave the hotel? Next time, go out somewhere at night where there will be immigrants and you'll see exact the problem, that is, unless a Swiss doesn't warn you first NOT to go there.

Again with your assumption that I somehow closed my eyes. I have travelled much of its principal cities on foot, at all times of day and night, and have not seen anything like what you describe. I do not dispute that Switzerland has crime, it would be idiotic to argue otherwise, but I see nothing that proves your statement about how it is the immigrants that cause it. Have YOU, been to Switzerland? I very much doubt that.


The solution is deportation of criminal elements of society, strict overhaul of the immigration system, and intensive selection of who is integratable and who is not.

Then the solution is to deport ALL criminals, not just the immigrants. Otherwise you are being a double faced lying hypocrite. Britain tried that on two continents, and look what happened. It did nothing to solve its crime problems.


Here I'll admit a mistake. I meant the Swiss left, as they are (quite publicly) going about trying to fight for those causes that I mentoined before. Put the "Swiss Left" into my previous statement, and it will make sense.

So in that context, you argue the merits of direct democracy, when it supports your views, yet when other parties of the same nationality you talk about the benefits thereof decide to argue otherwise, you'd be "damned if they change it"

So you don't believe in democracy either. Hypocrite.

So you don't believe in democracy either. Hypocrite.

Look who you were addressing. He never believed in democracy unless it suited his diatribes against The Left™.

Because it's where they were raised? Because when you've spent more than 12 of your 20 years in a place, you feel that it's home?

I think there is more to being say Swiss because you have lived there for a while. For example I move to China from England and live there for 12 years, my parents, grandparents, great grandparents are all English, now does living in China for 12 years automatically make me Chinese?

I know someone and as she was born in England she has a British passport, yet her parent only lived there for 6 months and still had their Australian passports, they moved bake to Australia when she was two months, and grew up in Australia and is more true blue than I, because she has the British passport does that make her British? My point is just because you may have been born some where doesn't necessarily make you a person from that place, especially if you don't grow up and develop the same mentality and culture of the country.

When they don't come through airports, with proper identification and passports, of course. We send back people who come smuggled in containers from Asia too. We do it to Canadians, and Australians, and Europeans too -- but then, mentioning that doesn't fit in with your agenda, does it?

It's ILLEGAL immigration that the US is against -- get your Visa and your papers and you're more than welcome.

Unfortunately Kat a lot of people don't see it that way, they aren't locked up because they are immigrants and the government is xenophobic but because they have broken the law, it will be good when people realise that.

Where is anything said about the people concerned not being liked. What happened is that they were not granted citizenship. They were not hounded out of town, ostracised, persecuted or in any other way shown that they were disliked.
Except that they were up for a public vote, and everyone knew they had failed. Being pointed at and laughed at after losing the vote is, if true, absolutely being shown that you were disliked.

If you could show me that these people were not liked just because they came from Eastern Europe, then yes you could justifiably use the term bigot, but that has not been shown.
That's what the Supreme Court found though.
It said the applicants, all Yugoslav nationals, were victims of discrimination and that their constitutional rights were violated.
Linky (http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/index.html?siteSect=105&sid=4021512)

What is not discussed here is why these people want citizenship. If you look to my reply to Heikoku you will see that I am not a citizen of the country where I live. This makes little difference, unless I want to obtain some specific benefits. In Switzerland citizenship also implies a collection of strict duties (military service is required of all citizens there). So why do these people want citizenship?
I'm guessing they'd like Swiss passports, protection from deportation, and the ability to vote and to run for public office. The latter two kinda important in a democratic country.

So some candidates were rejected, but not all - or at least it does not say so. Nor does it say why they were rejected. The BBC has failed badly here. It has presented the reader with what appears to be an argument when there is actually nothing solid there at all.
First of all, since no reason were ever given directly, we can't say why they were rejected.
Secondly, since the Supreme Court has found the procedure discriminatory and unconstitutional, the BBC is correct in its description.

On what basis did the Supreme court identify the discrimination.
I would guess that it was because the voting was decided after the voters had gotten a short CV, a picture and information about the native country. Hardly sufficient information to decide whether or not they had integrated sufficiently.


I have no problem with laws deciding, but here it is not the law, it is the supreme court - a collection of random bigots if you will, bigots who do not consider the citizens they represent to be capable of making a correct decision (correct that is in the eyes of the court).
That's not what they're saying. They are, however, saying that the constitutional rights of the applicants were violated by the method of determening whether or not to grant citizenship. It's not that the citizens can't make the right decision, it's more that this subject is unsuitable for putting before a public vote.

The state is the instrument of the people, do not forget that. It's role should be to serve the people, protect their way of life and preserve their values and interests. I am not advocating here the abolition of the state, I am simply advocating that it should not try to go beyond its purpose or authority.
Good thing that's not the case here then.

To conclude - I personally find it abhorrent that there exist societies that wish to exclude outsiders from membership. However these societies have as much right to exist as any other that does not infringe on basic human rights. One of those basic rights is the right to self determination - and I see it as a far greater wrong to preempt this basic right in order to provide access to that society for outsiders. If you do not, then we have to disagree.
So when the right to self determination collides with other constitutional rights, the right to self determination will in your mind win out?



Then the solution is to deport ALL criminals, not just the immigrants. Otherwise you are being a double faced lying hypocrite. Britain tried that on two continents, and look what happened. It did nothing to solve its crime problems.
I disagree with you here. It's perfectly legitimate and not hypocritical to deport criminal immigrants back to their homelands (within certain limits) while not deporting criminal citizens. And that's one reason why citizenship shouldn't be an arbitrary decision like it would be if put before a vote: Because citizenship will grant another level of protection - protection against deportation.

Countries should have the opportunity to expell immigrants, because criminal immigrants are a danger to the immigration system itself. If a country did not have that opportunity, the interest of the country to protect itself would mean that immigration policy would be even stricter than it is today.




I think there is more to being say Swiss because you have lived there for a while. For example I move to China from England and live there for 12 years, my parents, grandparents, great grandparents are all English, now does living in China for 12 years automatically make me Chinese?
You forgot about the rest of the requirements. You'd also have to speak a Chinese language fluently, show integration into the Chinese way of life, familiarity with Chinese habits, customs and traditions, a compliance with the Chinese rule of law, and that you pose no danger to China's internal or external security.

It still doesn' make you Chinese - but the question should rather be: At what point should you be allowed to have a say in the political life of the country? After fulfilling all of the requirements above, and still having a desire to stay in the country, why should you still not be allowed to vote?

I know someone and as she was born in England she has a British passport, yet her parent only lived there for 6 months and still had their Australian passports, they moved bake to Australia when she was two months, and grew up in Australia and is more true blue than I, because she has the British passport does that make her British? My point is just because you may have been born some where doesn't necessarily make you a person from that place, especially if you don't grow up and develop the same mentality and culture of the country.
When you are born in a country, reside there legally for more than 12 years, fulfill all of the requirements mentioned above - why should you be denied the right to vote when you turn 18? And would that person - in your mind - not be called Swiss? If so, would he or she fit the description "forreigner"? Especially if he or she has never left the country?

And besides, in a vote on citizenship, where the applicant has shown integration into the Swiss way of life, familiarity with Swiss habits, customs and traditions, a compliance with the rule of law, how would you go about deciding that - never having met the person - the applicant has not developed "the same mentality and culture" as what you find in Switzerland? What do you look for on the short CV, exactly?

I disagree with you here. It's perfectly legitimate and not hypocritical to deport criminal immigrants back to their homelands (within certain limits) while not deporting criminal citizens. And that's one reason why citizenship shouldn't be an arbitrary decision like it would be if put before a vote: Because citizenship will grant another level of protection - protection against deportation.

Countries should have the opportunity to expell immigrants, because criminal immigrants are a danger to the immigration system itself. If a country did not have that opportunity, the interest of the country to protect itself would mean that immigration policy would be even stricter than it is today.


You do realize he was treating deportation of immigrants as a cure all for crime? Criminal elements, I believe he said. That means citizens and non-citizens.

And besides, in a vote on citizenship, where the applicant has shown integration into the Swiss way of life, familiarity with Swiss habits, customs and traditions, a compliance with the rule of law, how would you go about deciding that - never having met the person - the applicant has not developed "the same mentality and culture" as what you find in Switzerland? What do you look for on the short CV, exactly?

An '-ic' at the end of the name. :/

Apparently no extrapolation is available yet. I'll look at it again in a couple of hours.

edit: Intermediate result for Canton of BS (voting by letter): 71% against SVP.

These seem to be final results. Rural cantons are smaller and the votes therefore counted more quickly. They're also usually more conservative than the urban areas (...where there are more foreigners...), thus the tight results. They're also more likely to even have a ballot immigration system - obviously this kind of system isn't used in cities anyway.

GL: 51.1% No
AR: 57.39% No

You do realize he was treating deportation of immigrants as a cure all for crime? Criminal elements, I believe he said. That means citizens and non-citizens.

No, I didn't realize that. I would not accept deportation for non-citizens - and it wouldn't be a practical alternative either.

But I stand by my previous post :)

An '-ic' at the end of the name. :/

Apparently no extrapolation is available yet. I'll look at it again in a couple of hours.

edit: Intermediate result for Canton of BS (voting by letter): 71% against SVP.

These seem to be final results. Rural cantons are smaller and the votes therefore counted more quickly. They're also usually more conservative than the urban areas (...where there are more foreigners...), thus the tight results. They're also more likely to even have a ballot immigration system - obviously this kind of system isn't used in cities anyway.

GL: 51.1% No
AR: 57.39% No
So it'll fail?

So it'll fail?

It has. Overall result is 63.47% "No", with one canton going yes (rural, as I expected). So no surprise there.

Unfortunate loss for Switzerland at the hands of Leftists, but the fight will surely be continued. The SVP will continue to defend Switzerland.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44707000/jpg/_44707085_swiss_afp_226b.jpg

Swiss reject new citizenship rule

Critics said the posters for tougher rules had racist undertones
Voters in Switzerland have rejected a move to make it even harder for foreigners to obtain citizenship.

In a referendum, they voted 64% against a bid to revive the practice of approving citizenship candidates by secret ballot and scrapping appeals.

Secret ballots were outlawed five years ago by the supreme court, which judged them to be discriminatory.

Switzerland has one of Europe's highest numbers of foreign-born residents - more than 20%.

Many Swiss said not allowing voters to have the final say on who became a citizen violated the country's system of direct democracy, the BBC's Imogen Foulkes reports from Berne.

However, opponents of Sunday's poll, which was called by the nationalist Swiss People's Party, suspect the real agenda behind it was not Swiss democracy, but how best to keep certain groups out of Switzerland, our correspondent adds.

Twelve years of residence

Initial reporting of the poll results showed that the measure to raise the threshold for citizenship was soundly defeated, gaining approval in only one of Switzerland's 26 cantons (states).

Swiss laws on naturalisation are already tough.

Candidates for citizenship must live in Switzerland for at least 12 years, they have to pass tests on Swiss language and culture, and those born in Switzerland have no automatic right to citizenship.

The final hurdle is approval by the local community at a town meeting.

The supreme court outlawed secret ballots five years ago after it became clear that some towns were regularly rejecting candidates from the Balkans, Turkey and Africa, while approving those from Western Europe.

It also gave those rejected the right to appeal.

The Swiss People's Party, the largest in parliament, wants the secret ballots back and the right to appeal removed.

See, this is why democracy isn't good on its own. Two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for lunch.

Unfortunate loss for Switzerland at the hands of Leftists, but the fight will surely be continued.
I, for one, can't wait to see the SVP drain its reserves of money on a hopeless cause.
The SVP will continue to defend Switzerland.
Obviously it won't, seeing as 70% of people didn't vote for them in the Federal elections, and 64% of people voted against this new policy...

Unfortunate loss for Switzerland at the hands of Leftists, but the fight will surely be continued. The SVP will continue to defend Switzerland.

*snicker.

Unfortunate loss for Switzerland at the hands of Leftists, but the fight will surely be continued. The SVP will continue to defend Switzerland.Cuz it wasn't the Swiss that decided, it was Swiss leftists. Sure.

Cuz it wasn't the Swiss that decided, it was Swiss leftists. Sure.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was parity between the number of times TAI spits out "Leftists" and the number of times Andaras spits out "Bourgeois".

If Gillette ever decided to make Left Guard deodorant he'd snap them up like ammunition for the coming revolution, heh heh heh.

Stadt St. Gallä :cool:
aha, nid schlächt, nid schlächt. Abr wo bisch eigenlich gebore? Dini Stadt isch hüere geil.
This is a red herring. If it is allowed, by implication, it is legal. If it is legal to give mob rule the right to overturn government standards, then there really isn't that much standing between turning murder into killing.
This is ridiculous. Cantons can't legalize murder or start making it legal to rape 13 year old girls or something.....


Again with your assumption that I somehow closed my eyes. I have travelled much of its principal cities on foot, at all times of day and night, and have not seen anything like what you describe. I do not dispute that Switzerland has crime, it would be idiotic to argue otherwise, but I see nothing that proves your statement about how it is the immigrants that cause it.
It is well known that the rise of immigration to Switzerland has brought a rise of immigrant crime along with it. That is not debated. What is debated is who's fault it is and what should be done about it. For example, immigrants fault for being criminals, Switzerland's fault for not assimilating them well enough and leaving them out of the culture, thus pushing them to crime. And....work with them to help them assimlate and adjust to multiculturalism, or deport the criminal elements and crack down on them with stricter security.

Ect ect ect.
Have YOU, been to Switzerland? I very much doubt that.
lollllllllll

Of course I have. Why do you doubt that very much?

Then the solution is to deport ALL criminals, not just the immigrants. Otherwise you are being a double faced lying hypocrite. Britain tried that on two continents, and look what happened. It did nothing to solve its crime problems.
It's much harder to deport citizens than non-citizens, obviously. Anyway, a crack down on crime (what the SVP is for) obviously applies to native Swiss aswell, but the idea of deportation and regulation of immigrants obviously would more apply to immigrants (generally Balkan ones as they make up a huge portion of the crime) because they are the ones coming to the country and then saying fuck you to the hospitality Switzerland gave them.

If you're a guest in someone's house, you play by their rules and should be thanking them that they've allowed you in their house. There is no God given right for all these Balkan people to settle in Switzerland.

So in that context, you argue the merits of direct democracy, when it supports your views, yet when other parties of the same nationality you talk about the benefits thereof decide to argue otherwise, you'd be "damned if they change it"
Here's where I end things with a quote.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." — Barry Goldwater

Fighting to preserve the democratic tradition against the Left who want to destroy it when it doesn't coincide with their multicultural goals, is NOT anti-Democratic.

Fighting to preserve the democratic tradition against the Left who want to destroy it when it doesn't coincide with their multicultural goals, is NOT anti-Democratic.
You did read the below, dindn't you?

"Voters in Switzerland have rejected a move to make it even harder for foreigners to obtain citizenship.

In a referendum, they voted 64% against a bid to revive the practice of approving citizenship candidates by secret ballot and scrapping appeals."

It's not the amorphous 'Left' who're stopping this, it's Swiss voters themselves.

A majority of them.

In the democratic tradition.

Fighting to preserve the democratic tradition against the Left who want to destroy it when it doesn't coincide with their multicultural goals, is NOT anti-Democratic.How hypocritical. If the SVP continues "fighting for Switzerland" as you said, it will be against the democratic tradition.

You did read the below, dindn't you?

"Voters in Switzerland have rejected a move to make it even harder for foreigners to obtain citizenship.

In a referendum, they voted 64% against a bid to revive the practice of approving citizenship candidates by secret ballot and scrapping appeals."

It's not the amorphous 'Left' who're stopping this, it's Swiss voters themselves.

A majority of them.

In the democratic tradition.

Yes, but they democratically made the wrong choice. Duh.

Yes, but they democratically made the wrong choice. Duh.

Sort of like how the United States pushes for democracy its way and punishes anyone who doesn't do as they're told.

I've just been given some new information on this issue, and you guys can do what you want with it, but I thought it was quite interesting.

I was just discussing this with a good Swiss friend of mine, who also shares my concerns about multiculturalism and it's effects on Switzerland. He told me he voted no to the initiative because it wasn't really well thought out and could end up really fucking Switzerland over in the end. He's not anti-SVP, just thought it was a bad iniative for the following reasons. He said if it went through, then all the villages outside of the couple main cities would have denied access to ausländer, but the main cities (notably Basel and Genf), which are quite left wing, would have been happy to allow everyone and their mother to settle there. The problem is here because these cities are already streaming with the multicultural problems from an anti-Swiss feeling, too much immigrant crime, a general foreign feeling in your own city, islamization and immigrant ghettos. So, since the towns outside of these main cities would close themselves off to immigrants, these couple main cities would expierence a boom in these problems and would really fuck over the main cities in end. There is most certainly a problem with multiculturalism in Switzerland, but the SVP didn't have a good way to solve it and indeed may have very likely exacerbated the problem in the main cities through this initiative.

I suppose I agree. It makes sense I can only hope that the SVP will think about this when working up their new course of action.

Sort of like how the United States pushes for democracy its way and punishes anyone who doesn't do as they're told.
See their, and Britain's, massive support for the democratically elected Palestinian authority.

Sort of like how the United States pushes for democracy its way and punishes anyone who doesn't do as they're told.
"Got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
Until somebody we LIKE can be elected!" :D

I've just been given some new information on this issue, and you guys can do what you want with it, but I thought it was quite interesting.

I was just discussing this with a good Swiss friend of mine, who also shares my concerns about multiculturalism and it's effects on Switzerland. He told me he voted no to the initiative because it wasn't really well thought out and could end up really fucking Switzerland over in the end. He's not anti-SVP, just thought it was a bad iniative for the following reasons. He said if it went through, then all the villages outside of the couple main cities would have denied access to ausländer, but the main cities (notably Basel and Genf), which are quite left wing, would have been happy to allow everyone and their mother to settle there. The problem is here because these cities are already streaming with the multicultural problems from an anti-Swiss feeling, too much immigrant crime, a general foreign feeling in your own city, islamization and immigrant ghettos. So, since the towns outside of these main cities would close themselves off to immigrants, these couple main cities would expierence a boom in these problems and would really fuck over the main cities in end. There is most certainly a problem with multiculturalism in Switzerland, but the SVP didn't have a good way to solve it and indeed may have very likely exacerbated the problem in the main cities through this initiative.

I suppose I agree. It makes sense I can only hope that the SVP will think about this when working up their new course of action.

So his problem is that some people might democratically decide that they don't have a problem with immigrants? Oh dear.

So his problem is that some people might democratically decide that they don't have a problem with immigrants? Oh dear.

And by 'immigrants' he means 'ethnicities that scream eb1l mozlem.' He'll only mention other ethnicities in a disingenuous token defense of his position of course. It's almost as formulaic as a Scooby Doo episode.

And by 'immigrants' he means 'ethnicities that scream eb1l mozlem.' He'll only mention other ethnicities in a disingenuous token defense of his position of course. It's almost as formulaic as a Scooby Doo episode.You're kidding, right? There was at least some element of variation in Scooby Doo episodes.

aha, nid schlächt, nid schlächt. Abr wo bisch eigenlich gebore? Dini Stadt isch hüere geil.

Bi en ungar. Und was St. Gallä aagoht... s kanton mag i, dstadt weniger.

Obviously it won't, seeing as 70% of people didn't vote for them in the Federal elections, and 64% of people voted against this new policy...

Seeing as it's the largest party AND on the rise, I guess it will. You see, this vote wasn't called "SVP or not". MANY SVP supporters voted against this law (mostly in BE) and if you do the math, you'll see that there has to be a lot of non-SVP voters who voted in favour of this law. And as for the federal elections, the SVP was THE winner (along with the Greens), so I don't see your point.

What this vote has shown us is that 36% of the people have lost their faith in the government when it comes to keeping criminals out. 36% are a large minority, a minority that wants to change the current direction things are heading, which was recently signalised by the federal court revoking citizens' rights to decide who may become one of them. By continuing this course, you'll only get MORE people who become fed up with the situation in Switzerland. (A side note: it's not good, and it's getting worse. I live here. I know).

The SVP wouldn't be half as big if it wasn't for criminals (and criminal immigrants). If Switzerland would be like it was 30 years ago, peaceful and idyllic, the SVP would be a one-federal-counsilor peasant party. But Switzerland has begun to deteriorate and the SVP doubled its seats in the parliament. And since the last election, there have been a few political setbacks for the SVP, each resulting in a further boost for the party among the population. The CVP gave the decisive vote to boot Blocher out of the Council -> the disgruntled people started leaving the CVP, the CVP lost big time during local elections and if I recall well, even a politician left their ranks.

What the right-wing loses on the political scale they gain on the popular scale... and elections are held periodically you know. There are two directions this might go:

1) The right-wing failing to get through on a federal scale -> more angry people (including non-SVP) -> a landslide to the right -> the SVP succeeding eventually
2) The right-wing getting its way -> Switzerland getting safer and more orderly -> political status quo

What you can't change are the people - and it's the people that make you feel at home (or the contrary thereof), not your papers. If the people welcome you, you'll get your papers in time. If they won't, well, you can forcefully grant someone citizenship, but for the rest of Switzerland, you've just become a criminal that can't be dealt with anymore, whether you're really a criminal or not (and no, penalties in Switzerland aren't worth shit, deportation is seen as the only way of keeping MANY criminals outside of Swiss society). Hell, if it keeps going the way it currently is in my city, I'll literally flee from here.

What you can't change are the people - and it's the people that make you feel at home (or the contrary thereof), not your papers. If the people welcome you, you'll get your papers in time. If they won't, well, you can forcefully grant someone citizenship, but for the rest of Switzerland, you've just become a criminal that can't be dealt with anymore, whether you're really a criminal or not (and no, penalties in Switzerland aren't worth shit, deportation is seen as the only way of keeping MANY criminals outside of Swiss society). Hell, if it keeps going the way it currently is in my city, I'll literally flee from here.So basically every non-Swiss person attempting to gain citizenship is a criminal?

So basically every non-Swiss person attempting to gain citizenship is a criminal?

Baaaaah, READ what I wrote, or at least what you quote!

No, but if you have an angry crowd with less and less to say, people stop thinking. Criminal immigrants make life harder for non-criminal immigrants, because they have to face a new prejudice, but whenever the burgeoisie (I'm using the word in a positive sense) sees its attempts to restore order or preserve the traditional democracy rendered futile, it gets angry and starts to call the wrong people criminals.

Unfortunate loss for Switzerland at the hands of Leftists, but the fight will surely be continued. The SVP will continue to defend Switzerland.
:rolleyes:

You seem to use the word "leftist" way too much. I feel that I have to quote the Princess Bride here:


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Also, defend against what?

I was just discussing this with a good Swiss friend of mine
No doubt an evil Leftist that was trying to destroy Switzerland from within, seeing as how he voted against it.

The problem is here because these cities are already streaming with the multicultural problems from an anti-Swiss feeling, too much immigrant crime, a general foreign feeling in your own city, islamization and immigrant ghettos.
I don't know how many threads we've been through where you're talking about that - and you have yet to define it or explain what you mean. It's an empty and meaningless term when you use it, and actually, I think you're just using it because you think it sounds scary.


It's much harder to deport citizens than non-citizens, obviously.
Actually, it's not possible. Not harder, not more difficult - but simply impossible.

That's what citizenship does. That you still haven't understood that just shows that you don't understand the debate.

Fighting to preserve the democratic tradition against the Left who want to destroy it when it doesn't coincide with their multicultural goals, is NOT anti-Democratic.
You really don't know what you're talking about, do you.

2) The right-wing getting its way -> Switzerland getting safer and more orderly -> political status quo
Wait, what? How does the question of citizenship make Switzerland safer and more orderly? :confused:

Can you show me that there is a problem with criminal immigrants that have gotten citizenship and can't be deported anymore? Are there many who wait for 12 years, just to be granted the protection before they go on a crime spree?

It doesn't make sense.

I don't know how many threads we've been through where you're talking about that - and you have yet to define it or explain what you mean. It's an empty and meaningless term when you use it, and actually, I think you're just using it because you think it sounds scary.


I'm not defending anyone, only a term. Islamization is the process of a region losing somewhat-sane Christian/Atheist/Scientific thinking and allowing the ancient thinking of of a religion and philosophy that has not kept up with the times. Islamization is often carried out through mass immigration and violence.

The Swiss have voted to reject even tougher laws for immigrants.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7429728.stm

I'm not defending anyone, only a term. Islamization is the process of a region losing somewhat-sane Christian/Atheist/Scientific thinking and allowing the ancient thinking of of a religion and philosophy that has not kept up with the times. Islamization is often carried out through mass immigration and violence.

I suppose "Homosexuality is an abomination and homosexuals should not be allowed to marry because it threatens Traditional Family Values" can be considered remotely sane?

I suppose "Homosexuality is an abomination and homosexuals should not be allowed to marry because it threatens Traditional Family Values" can be considered remotely sane?

More sane than "Women should have no rights whatsoever."

More sane than "Women should have no rights whatsoever."

So I guess that means the FLDS is a Muslim sect then. :rolleyes:

Aside from that little remark you're also declaring that homosexual discrimination has a scientific and rational basis, not to mention that all Muslims oppress women.

I'm surprised Kimchi hasn't offered you membership in his clubhouse.

I'm not defending anyone, only a term. Islamization is the process of a region losing somewhat-sane Christian/Atheist/Scientific thinking and allowing the ancient thinking of of a religion and philosophy that has not kept up with the times. Islamization is often carried out through mass immigration and violence.

Thanks for trying. There are some parts of your definition that I find lacking/flawed, but that's not something I will go into here and now. But at least you gave it a go. ;)

TAI has not deemed it worthy of a response in several threads, and have been unwilling or unable to even attempt to claridy or define the term - even when making a thread on the supposed islamization of dutch culture he couldn't be bothered to respond to several direct questions.

So I guess that means the FLDS is a Muslim sect then. :rolleyes:

Aside from that little remark you're also declaring that homosexual discrimination has a scientific and rational basis, not to mention that all Muslims oppress women.

I'm surprised Kimchi hasn't offered you membership in his clubhouse.

FLDS is lot smaller than Islam and a lot less of a threat. I'm not saying discrimination towards homosexuals is right; I'm saying that at least Christians don't kill them...

Most Christian churches will generally adapt their views to fit scientific reason and common sense over time. Islam, as a whole, fails to do this.

Most Christian churches will generally adapt their views to fit scientific reason and common sense over time. Islam, as a whole, fails to do this.
This is simply not true. See the many, many progressive Islamic organisations in the US, Europe and around the world.

FLDS is lot smaller than Islam and a lot less of a threat. I'm not saying discrimination towards homosexuals is right; I'm saying that at least Christians don't kill them...
You should try to generalize less. Muslims don't generally kill homosexuals either, just like Christians.

Most Christian churches will generally adapt their views to fit scientific reason and common sense over time. Islam, as a whole, fails to do this.

That's a huge "whole" there... Can you show me any examples on what you mean? Because I'm pretty sure "Islam" has embraced modern physics, biology, chemistry and scientific reason and common sense...

This is simply not true. See the many, many progressive Islamic organisations in the US, Europe and around the world.

What percentage of Muslims live under oppressive regimes in the Middle East that enforce Sharia law?

There is my reasoning.

Just like FLDS is not representative of Christians, progressive Islam in the western world is not representative of Islam.

What percentage of Muslims live under oppressive regimes in the Middle East that enforce Sharia law?

There is my reasoning.
Then your reasoning is badly flawed.

Oppressive regimes, no matter the population that lives under them do not speak for 'Islam'. Indeed, like any large organised religion with many sects and sub-sects, no one body or organisation can legitimately speak for the religion as a whole.

Just like FLDS is not representative of Christians, progressive Islam in the western world is not representative of Islam.
But the regimes of Iran or Saudi Arabia do?

This makes no sense.

Wait, what? How does the question of citizenship make Switzerland safer and more orderly? :confused:

Can you show me that there is a problem with criminal immigrants that have gotten citizenship and can't be deported anymore? Are there many who wait for 12 years, just to be granted the protection before they go on a crime spree?

It doesn't make sense.

Yes I can. And don't take my word for it (you seem to be extremely reluctant to do so), here's an example: Last Carnival (that was this year), a 22 year-old Swiss student was beaten to death by three individuals.

At the same time, more information gets through about earlier, brutal incidents. The trio is said to have striked last carnival already, in Maggia. Norman Gobbi, the Liga Ticinese delegate in the Cantonal Parliament told BLICK: "One of the three was involved in a fight. He attacked a youngster with a broken beer bottle and injured him on the face." According to Gobbi, the offender fled.

The Cantonal Police of Ticino remains silent: "We may not tell anything. The courts are responsible". But Justice Director Luigi Pedrazzini demands "hard and exemplary sentences". More and more Ticinese demand the deportation of the brawlers. Two of them originate from Bosnia, one from Croatia. Two have got a Swiss passport.

/Newspaper article, first hit when you do a Google search on "tessin" and "fasnacht")
Gleichzeitig sickern immer mehr Informationen über frühere, brutale Vorfälle durch. Das Trio soll bereits letztes Jahr an der Fasnacht zugeschlagen haben. In Maggia. Norman Gobbi, Abgeordneter der Lega Ticinese im Kantonsparlament, zu BLICK: «Einer der drei war in eine Schlägerei verwickelt. Er ging mit einer zerbrochenen Bierflasche auf einen Jüngling los und verletzte ihn im Gesicht.» Der Täter flüchtete laut Gobbi.

Die Tessiner Kapo schweigt dazu: «Wir dürfen nichts sagen. Zuständig ist das Gericht.» Justizdirektor Luigi Pedrazzini aber fordert «harte und exemplarische Strafen». Immer mehr Tessiner verlangen sogar die Ausweisung der Schläger. Zwei von ihnen stammen aus Bosnien, einer aus Kroatien. Zwei haben den Schweizer Pass.

There are many different nationalities among that foreign 20%. Eastern Europeans are credited with making the cities unsafe at night and making schools they go to unsafe. Now, either because I'm a psychic and can see the future, or because I've already had this type of discussion before, I can predict that you'll say: Oh but Turaan you burgeois/racist/discriminating sod, this is just ONE... err, THREE examples. Surely you can't base a law on THAT!

Well, here are some statistics for you. The problem with statistics is, that nay-sayers may just simply ignore them and label them biased if they don't agree with it, but THIS (http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/19/03/03/key/verurteilte.html) is straight from the government. The very government that consists of EVERY PARTY EXCEPT THE SVP.

Demographische Merkmale der Verurteilten 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Insgesamt 83'414 89'016 97'601 94'824 97'911

Geschlecht
Männlich 71'315 75'955 83'703 80'975 83'368
Weiblich 12'080 13'017 13'785 13'566 14'141

Alter
bis 20 5'051 5'293 6'111 5'549 5'543
20 bis 24 16'808 18'806 20'877 19'546 19'562
25 bis 29 13'425 14'349 15'570 15'310 16'077
30 bis 34 12'213 12'786 13'557 13'031 13'265
35 bis 39 10'804 11'347 12'045 11'681 11'730
40 bis 44 8'196 8'842 9'915 9'951 10'322
45 bis 49 5'972 6'141 7'120 7'249 7'738
50 bis 54 4'507 4'534 4'931 4'839 5'280
55 bis 59 2'981 3'244 3'513 3'459 3'670
60 bis 64 1'743 1'822 2'011 1'971 2'271
65 und mehr 1'695 1'808 1'838 1'955 2'051

Nationalität
Schweizer 43'184 45'275 49'491 47'326 49'568
Ausländer 40'211 43'697 47'997 47'215 47'941

Ausländer means foreigner. In this chart, it means "person without Swiss citizenship", so it excludes naturalised foreigners.

But the regimes of Iran or Saudi Arabia do?

This makes no sense.

It does if you're trying to cherry pick examples to support the image of Teh Ebil Mozlem Hyvemynd like TAI/WF.

Then your reasoning is badly flawed.

Oppressive regimes, no matter the population that lives under them do not speak for 'Islam'. Indeed, like any large organised religion with many sects and sub-sects, no one body or organisation can legitimately speak for the religion as a whole.


But the regimes of Iran or Saudi Arabia do?

This makes no sense.

Sharia law is the law of Islam. Most Muslims follow it. Most Muslims live in the Middle East, where this form of law IS enforced by the government. Some try to bring this law to other parts of the world in their communities; that is Islamization.

Sharia law is the law of Islam. Most Muslims follow it. Most Muslims live in the Middle East, where this form of law IS enforced by the government. Some try to bring this law to other parts of the world in their communities; that is Islamization.

I guess this means Turkey is a Sharia Theocracy. :rolleyes:

That and you're trying to justify your position with a No True Scotsman Fallacy lumped on Muslims.

I guess this means Turkey is a Sharia Theocracy. :rolleyes:

That and you're trying to justify your position with a No True Scotsman Fallacy lumped on Muslims.

Hardly, I'm just saying that a vast majority of Muslims, especially those in the Middle East due to government influence hold archaic and dangerous ideals.

Sharia law is the law of Islam. Most Muslims follow it. Most Muslims live in the Middle East, where this form of law IS enforced by the government. Some try to bring this law to other parts of the world in their communities; that is Islamization.

Which parts of it? What schools of jurisprudence? Or is it all the same to you?

Sharia law is the law of Islam. Most Muslims follow it.
There is no single Sharia law, or single set of Sharia laws. The understanding of Sharia is based on your interpretation of the Qur'an, the hadith and many other documents and traditions.

It's like saying, "all Christians follow the words of Jesus". It's perfectly true, but the interpretation of those words vary hugely. Just as there are hundreds and thousands of differing interpretations of Christian theology, there are hundreds and thousands of differing interpretations of Islamic theology.

Unfortunately, in the West, 'Sharia' has come to mean something entirely different.

Most Muslims live in the Middle East, where this form of law IS enforced by the government.
Which once again leads to the question of why you believe these governments can legitimately speak for the entire of Islam.

Which parts of it? What schools of jurisprudence? Or is it all the same to you?

Any society with absurd and outdated laws can not successfully adapt to the modern world without modifications. The similarities among them outweigh the differences.

Any society with absurd and outdated laws can not successfully adapt to the modern world without modifications. The similarities among them outweigh the differences.

So... you don't really know what Sharia is then, and just lump it all together, calling it "absurd and outdated" without any argument from you about what parts deserve that characterization and why? Nice.

Most Muslims live in the Middle East, where this form of law IS enforced by the government.

Now that is just silly. How big do you think the Middle East is? IIRC There are only slightly more Muslims in the Middle East than in Indonesia alone. When the rest pf the Muslim world is included, the Middle Eastern population is completely dwarfed (dwarved?).

This is of course beside the point. But I feel it is important to combat this myth.

So... you don't really know what Sharia is then, and just lump it all together, calling it "absurd and outdated" without any argument from you about what parts deserve that characterization and why? Nice.

On the bright side, he's been able to do at least two posts without writing "Leftist"!

On the bright side, he's been able to do at least two posts without writing "Leftist"!


Communists will raise my taxes. Terrorists will kill me.

Now, which one should I be more afraid of...?

Communists will raise my taxes. Terrorists will kill me.

Now, which one should I be more afraid of...?

Neither.

But this is getting off-topic, and I'd like to know why people think syopping immigrants from becoming citizens is a good way to combat immigrant crime. Or someone could show me how it's supporting an "islamization of european culture" or something...

Neither.

But this is getting off-topic, and I'd like to know why people think syopping immigrants from becoming citizens is a good way to combat immigrant crime. Or someone could show me how it's supporting an "islamization of european culture" or something...


There is evidence that immigrant Muslims are establishing their own communities and trying to stay isolated from the rest of nation (which would make them less than ideal candidates for citizenship). They try to follow their own laws instead of the laws of the nation they are in. I have heard to many news stories of this and evidence in unrelated stories is pointing to this probability as well.

More sane than "Women should have no rights whatsoever."

Like the Southern Baptists?

Now that is just silly. How big do you think the Middle East is? IIRC There are only slightly more Muslims in the Middle East than in Indonesia alone. When the rest pf the Muslim world is included, the Middle Eastern population is completely dwarfed (dwarved?).

This is of course beside the point. But I feel it is important to combat this myth.

From wiki.


About 20% of Muslims live in Arab countries,[9] 30% in the Indian subcontinent and 15.6% in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country by population.

Simply WOW, this is direct democracy gone terriblely wrong and democratic intergrity into question. It is unbelieveable that people who pass literacy tests and more than likely speak the language more proficiently that native Swiss should be denied citizenship. I hardly doubt that there will be any calls from the international community to end this discrimination but if this were taking place in America or China the entire world would be denouncing those nations

Simply WOW, this is direct democracy gone terriblely wrong and democratic intergrity into question. It is unbelieveable that people who pass literacy tests and more than likely speak the language more proficiently that native Swiss should be denied citizenship. I hardly doubt that there will be any calls from the international community to end this discrimination but if this were taking place in America or China the entire world would be denouncing those nations
It didn't pass.

Simply WOW, this is direct democracy gone terriblely wrong and democratic intergrity into question. It is unbelieveable that people who pass literacy tests and more than likely speak the language more proficiently that native Swiss should be denied citizenship. I hardly doubt that there will be any calls from the international community to end this discrimination but if this were taking place in America or China the entire world would be denouncing those nations

This is more than just saying to stay in the country this is allowing them to become citizens of the Swiss nation. Becomeing a citizen of any nation is more than just passing literacy tests and being able to speak the native tounge, it is also about accepting the national ideals, customs and traditions of the country. Even then they wouldn't be true Swiss, citizens of Switzerland yes holding a Swiss passport yes but still not Swiss. In the same way were I to move to the UK or China, and passed the requirements and knew the language and the customs, traditions and held the national ideal and became a citizen of that country I still wouldn't be English (or Scot or Welsh or Irish) or Chinese. If I had children there and the mother wasn't from that country of origin they wouldn't be Chinese either.

Switzerland: The Quebec of Europe.

This is more than just saying to stay in the country this is allowing them to become citizens of the Swiss nation. Becomeing a citizen of any nation is more than just passing literacy tests and being able to speak the native tounge, it is also about accepting the national ideals, customs and traditions of the country. Even then they wouldn't be true Swiss, citizens of Switzerland yes holding a Swiss passport yes but still not Swiss. In the same way were I to move to the UK or China, and passed the requirements and knew the language and the customs, traditions and held the national ideal and became a citizen of that country I still wouldn't be English (or Scot or Welsh or Irish) or Chinese. If I had children there and the mother wasn't from that country of origin they wouldn't be Chinese either.

Such and alien concept for me.
You would be American after a decade or so of being a US citizen.
And your children most certainly would be American regardless where their mother is from.

Switzerland: The Quebec of Europe.

Switzerland: The hole in the cheese.

Switzerland: The Quebec of Europe.

Ah, yes...Quebec. The Switzerland of...its country.

*Tries in vain to hide natural American ignorance of rest of the world*

Ah, yes...Quebec. The Switzerland of...its country.

:rolleyes:
The country's called Rupert's Land, ignorant American.

:rolleyes:
The country's called Rupert's Land, ignorant American.

Ah, yes...Rupert.

I'm kidding, I know where Quebec is: all the land north of Upstate New York.

Ah, yes...Rupert.

I'm kidding, I know where Quebec is: all the land north of Upstate New York.

It's actually in Maine.

Coincidentally I think that's where Nova Scotia is.
Though I keep getting it confused with some place in Canada..

Ah, yes...Rupert.

I'm kidding, I know where Quebec is: all the land north of Upstate New York.

To be fair, some of that does belong to one of the other Canadian states.

Coincidentally I think that's where Nova Scotia is.

(New Brunswick)

It's actually in Maine.

Coincidentally I think that's where Nova Scotia is.
Though I keep getting it confused with some place in Canada..

Yes, it's very confusing the way the globe continues north of the 49th parallel. I'm not good with latitudes over 49.

Yes, it's very confusing the way the globe continues north of the 49th parallel. I'm not good with latitudes over 49.

Anything North of the Mason-Dixon line is 'here be dragons' to me.

Anything North of the Mason-Dixon line is 'here be dragons' to me.

We usually just call them "Yankees," but I know what you mean.

Yes, it's very confusing the way the globe continues north of the 49th parallel. I'm not good with latitudes over 49.

Just be glad James K. Polk never got his wish.

Just be glad James K. Polk never got his wish.

Oh yes, there was some chant: "Fifty-eight forty!" right? If he got what he wanted, most of Oregon would be foreign to me. Actually, all of that land is foreign to me anyway, but you know what I mean.

Oh yes, there was some chant: "Fifty-eight forty!" right?

"Fifty-eight for tea!", actually. Polk promised the British he would return the tea they had thrown away nearly eighty years earlier (antique tea being very valuable on the foreign markets) in exchange for Oregon. Instead, the British halted relief to Ireland. This prompted the Americans (who were unfamiliar with compasses at the time) to invade Mexico.

"Fifty-eight for tea!", actually. Polk promised the British he would return the tea they had thrown away nearly eighty years earlier (antique tea being very valuable on the foreign markets) in exchange for Oregon. Instead, the British halted relief to Ireland. This prompted the Americans (who were unfamiliar with compasses at the time) to invade Mexico.

This story is great because it contains the respective default reactions of the U.S. and the U.K.
United States--When confronted, invade a country in Latin America.
United Kingdom--When confronted, screw the Irish.

This story is great because it contains the respective default reactions of the U.S. and the U.K.
United States--When confronted, invade a country in Latin America.
United Kingdom--When confronted, screw the Irish.

:D

Such and alien concept for me.
You would be American after a decade or so of being a US citizen.
And your children most certainly would be American regardless where their mother is from.

Well no I wouldn't be I might be Americanised and gain citizenship but I still wouldn't be American. The problem with this is that the 'new' worlds such as America and Australia as their are a lot of people moving in setting up new ideals and culture it is difficult for the concept I explained to be used, however, when we look at the 'old' countries it is a lot easier to explain as the ideals and cultures have arisen and people have lived there with those ideals over a much longer period of time, so it is easier to apply that concept. Which is while many Pakistanis may move to England they are not really English they are still Pakistani just as an Englishmen that move to Pakistan are not really Pakistani there are still English.

What a surprise. People are jerks everywhere.

You're suprised that there are jerks everywhere? Or was that sarcastic? If so, you forgot your ":rolleyes:" smilie.

Unfair? Sure. Unthinking? Hardly.
Question: why the hell would someone INSIST on staying someplace where the indigenous population has made a point not only of declining to make them citizens but singled them out for ridicule and humiliation? Tell them to go fuck themselves and move someplace more welcoming.

QFT. Why stay in a place that doesn't want you?

QFT. Why stay in a place that doesn't want you?

Power.

To make a point of power, actually. To make a point that you're there despite their wishes, to make THEM feel powerless.

Power.

To make a point of power, actually. To make a point that you're there despite their wishes, to make THEM feel powerless.

ANYONE making an application with reasons like this DESERVES to be hated by the rest. Good thing most of us aren't like that. It's people like you with statements like these who justify prejudices against foreigners here.

Well no I wouldn't be I might be Americanised and gain citizenship but I still wouldn't be American. The problem with this is that the 'new' worlds such as America and Australia as their are a lot of people moving in setting up new ideals and culture it is difficult for the concept I explained to be used, however, when we look at the 'old' countries it is a lot easier to explain as the ideals and cultures have arisen and people have lived there with those ideals over a much longer period of time, so it is easier to apply that concept. Which is while many Pakistanis may move to England they are not really English they are still Pakistani just as an Englishmen that move to Pakistan are not really Pakistani there are still English.

your own views might not let you consider yourself American. But we would generally consider you American if you considered yourself American.
You could also consider yourself both your birth culture(or forefathers even) and American. Many of us consider ourselves to be Irish and American for instance. (though the Irish at best view us as plastic paddies)

Switzerland: The Quebec of Europe.
It's more like the Kansas of Europe tbqh.

Many of us consider ourselves to be Irish and American for instance. (though the Irish at best view us as plastic paddies)
I think the preferred term is 'fecking Yanks'.

:p

your own views might not let you consider yourself American. But we would generally consider you American if you considered yourself American.
You could also consider yourself both your birth culture(or forefathers even) and American. Many of us consider ourselves to be Irish and American for instance. (though the Irish at best view us as plastic paddies)

Well perhaps, but were I to move to Ireland or an American move to Ireland, even if they became as Irish as you could get they still wouldn't be Irish. As I said applying this principle to America is more difficult than applying it to European, African and Asian countries.

Well perhaps, but were I to move to Ireland or an American move to Ireland, even if they became as Irish as you could get they still wouldn't be Irish. As I said applying this principle to America is more difficult than applying it to European, African and Asian countries.

But if an American lived in Ireland for long enough, they might not become irish but if they fufil the criteria, they become irish citizens and get given the same rights as someone who is born in Ireland. Surely that weakens your argument that Irish citizenship is inextractably bound with your "Irishness" and surely the same would apply of swiss citizenship.

It's more like the Kansas of Europe tbqh.
No. That is Poland.

No. That is Poland.
Good point, in which case Switzerland is more like Texas. Slightly less retarded, but guns all over the place.

Good point, in which case Switzerland is more like Texas. Slightly less retarded, but guns all over the place.
But Texas is more welcoming to immigrants, methinks... but yes, you are correct about them guns.

There is evidence that immigrant Muslims are establishing their own communities and trying to stay isolated from the rest of nation (which would make them less than ideal candidates for citizenship). They try to follow their own laws instead of the laws of the nation they are in. I have heard to many news stories of this and evidence in unrelated stories is pointing to this probability as well.
Newsflash: not only Muslims break the law.

Newsflash: not only Muslims break the law.

But they do commit terrorist acts substantially out of proportion to their numbers in country, eh?

But they do commit terrorist acts substantially out of proportion to their numbers in country, eh?

How many acts of terrorism have there been in Switzerland?

How many acts of terrorism have there been in Switzerland?

Don't know.

The trend for Muslim emigres in general is not a good one.

But if an American lived in Ireland for long enough, they might not become irish but if they fufil the criteria, they become irish citizens and get given the same rights as someone who is born in Ireland. Surely that weakens your argument that Irish citizenship is inextractably bound with your "Irishness" and surely the same would apply of swiss citizenship.

He is not talking about citizenship. He is talking about something more.

Well perhaps, but were I to move to Ireland or an American move to Ireland, even if they became as Irish as you could get they still wouldn't be Irish. As I said applying this principle to America is more difficult than applying it to European, African and Asian countries.

true. though China is different from the rest of Asia. there are in fact Americans who have lived in China since the civil war and married Chinese wives(why they stayed). They speak and act Chinese, and they are culturally Chinese. I know this because my Chinese teacher brought it up. They might not be considered Han Chinese but she said they are still considered Chinese(not just citizens). This is likely because China is also multi cultural some 50+ ethnic groups.

I believe that if someone wants citizenship (and this would solve a lot of US immigration problems).

1. Proof of full-time employment
2. Proof of full-time educational enrollment (uni) a plus
3. No criminal record of any kind
4. You may bring in your immediate family (husband, wife, kids)
5. You have to swear a loyalty oath, forsaking any other citizenship or organization, on pain of death if you violate it.
6. Raise your right hand - you're now a citizen.

You have to swear a loyalty oath, forsaking any other citizenship or organization, on pain of death if you violate it.
Not allowed to join any organisation or have dual-citizenship on pain of death? A bit harsh, no?

What if they're a member of the Xistan Tiddlywinks Club?

Don't know.

The trend for Muslim emigres in general is not a good one.
So what percentage of Muslim emigres have committed terrorist acts? How does that compare to emigres of other religions?
I believe that if someone wants citizenship (and this would solve a lot of US immigration problems).

5. You have to swear a loyalty oath, forsaking any other citizenship or organization, on pain of death if you violate it.

On pain of death? That's retarded. People born in America don't have to do this.

There is evidence that immigrant Muslims are establishing their own communities and trying to stay isolated from the rest of nation (which would make them less than ideal candidates for citizenship). They try to follow their own laws instead of the laws of the nation they are in. I have heard to many news stories of this and evidence in unrelated stories is pointing to this probability as well.
Well done, you managed to not answer my question, and failed to back up your claims too.

Well no I wouldn't be I might be Americanised and gain citizenship but I still wouldn't be American.
So when would you magically "become" American? Or wouldn't you ever?

QFT. Why stay in a place that doesn't want you?
Why should they be able to force you to move away from your home?

But they do commit terrorist acts substantially out of proportion to their numbers in country, eh?
No.

I believe that if someone wants citizenship (and this would solve a lot of US immigration problems).

1. Proof of full-time employment
2. Proof of full-time educational enrollment (uni) a plus
3. No criminal record of any kind
4. You may bring in your immediate family (husband, wife, kids)
5. You have to swear a loyalty oath, forsaking any other citizenship or organization, on pain of death if you violate it.
6. Raise your right hand - you're now a citizen.
What's the reason behind the rather silly fifth condition?
And as for the rest: What's so different from the situation today? And how would this solve any immigration issues?

Just a question Gravlen, since I'm curious: did you silently acknowledge my reply (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13735625&postcount=157) and agree or did you simply ignore it?

Just a question Gravlen, since I'm curious: did you silently acknowledge my reply (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13735625&postcount=157) and agree or did you simply ignore it?

Sorry, I seem to have missed it. I'll get back to it a little later, when I have more time :)

So what percentage of Muslim emigres have committed terrorist acts?

In Switzerland? None.

It's their business. Frankly, all those carping about it, seeking to impose their subjective morals upon it, ought to remember that.

But if an American lived in Ireland for long enough, they might not become irish but if they fufil the criteria, they become irish citizens and get given the same rights as someone who is born in Ireland. Surely that weakens your argument that Irish citizenship is inextractably bound with your "Irishness" and surely the same would apply of swiss citizenship.

Yes but just because you have the citizenship of a country say Ireland doesn't mean you are Irish.

I believe that if someone wants citizenship (and this would solve a lot of US immigration problems).

1. Proof of full-time employment
2. Proof of full-time educational enrollment (uni) a plus
3. No criminal record of any kind
4. You may bring in your immediate family (husband, wife, kids)
5. You have to swear a loyalty oath, forsaking any other citizenship or organization, on pain of death if you violate it.
6. Raise your right hand - you're now a citizen.

In regards to number five apart from the pain of death bit isn't a requirement of becoming a US citizen that you give up all other citzenship that you may hold?

In regards to number five apart from the pain of death bit isn't a requirement of becoming a US citizen that you give up all other citzenship that you may hold?

No

No

OK then, I was misinformed.

The USA recognizes dual citizenships with a handful of countries, but NOT all of them. Examples include the UK and Sweden.

But in regards to the Swiss, I think that if they want to have ridiculous standards for acceptance as a citizen, then it is entirely their right, (although I do not necessarily agree with it).

It's more like the Kansas of Europe tbqh.

The Kansas of Europe?

And just wtf is wrong with Kansas?

And just wtf is wrong with Kansas?

Lions, tigers, bears, you name it.

The Kansas of Europe?

And just wtf is wrong with Kansas?

Aside from a backwards school board that thinks the Bible is an acceptable scientific textbook? I dunno...

Aside from a backwards school board that thinks the Bible is an acceptable scientific textbook? I dunno...

Hmm, I don't ever recall being taught from the Bible...

Granted I didn't graduate high school in Kansas, but none of my friends were ever taught from the bible either.

In fact, I don't anyone in public schools are taught from the bible.

Intelligent design, if that is what you are referring to, is not teaching from the bible.

Hmm, I don't ever recall being taught from the Bible...

Perhaps not the Bible, but surely a Bible, at least?

Perhaps not the Bible, but surely a Bible, at least?

Not in public schools.

So when would you magically "become" American? Or wouldn't you ever?

I wouldn't as I said I am be Americanized but I wouldn't be American, just like if I went to China and lived there for 20 years knowing a native tounge, the customs the traditions I still wouldn't be Chinese.

And just wtf is wrong with Kansas?

Nothing. Kansas is awesome sauce.

On the topic of the thread, I think two things are to be separated from each other:

Do I believe that some of the voters who deny citizenship to non-Europeans do so on a racist basis? Quite likely.

Do I believe it's a bad idea that citizenship be decided by virtue of direct democracy? No. It's possible that there's a majority-racist population in some Swiss towns, and it's possible that they vote based on racist motivation, but let's face it – gaining citizenship in a new country where you immigrate into is not a right. It's a privilege that the citizens of a country, in their infinite kindless, choose to bestow upon you, either directly, as in Switzerland, or indirectly, through unelected citizenship-granting bureaucrats. If you don't respect that, you don't deserve to receive citizenship in the country you're applying for citizenship in.

Frankly, I'd rather have decisions be made by the people than by unelected bureaucrats. Same reason I think police chiefs, judges, and school boards ought to be directly elected, and that trial should involve juries.

Nothing. Kansas is awesome sauce.

On the topic of the thread, I think two things are to be separated from each other:

Do I believe that some of the voters who deny citizenship to non-Europeans do so on a racist basis? Quite likely.

Do I believe it's a bad idea that citizenship be decided by virtue of direct democracy? No. It's possible that there's a majority-racist population in some Swiss towns, and it's possible that they vote based on racist motivation, but let's face it – gaining citizenship in a new country where you immigrate into is not a right. It's a privilege that the citizens of a country, in their infinite kindless, choose to bestow upon you, either directly, as in Switzerland, or indirectly, through unelected citizenship-granting bureaucrats. If you don't respect that, you don't deserve to receive citizenship in the country you're applying for citizenship in.

Frankly, I'd rather have decisions be made by the people than by unelected bureaucrats. Same reason I think police chiefs, judges, and school boards ought to be directly elected, and that trial should involve juries.

Kansas is pretty cool. Its been a little hot lately, and its looking like the heat will stick for a while.

I agree with your statement concerning immigration.

Immigration is not a right. It is a privilege.

Immigration is not a right. It is a privilege.
That's really stupid. "Immigration" is the same as moving. The fact that the local community makes the decision in the local town hall acknowledges this quite clearly. It's not all of Switzerland that votes, it's the people in your town, and that means that there is no longer a difference in principle between someone who comes to the town from Turkey or someone who comes from another part of Switzerland.

So if you move from one town in, say, Kansas to another, should that be up for a vote by those locals? How much of your life do you feel is rightly decided upon by your peers, rather than yourself?

That's the real question for me. If people are being racist, that means they're idiots. If the world were a little fairer, they wouldn't have others who make their irrationality possible for them. But ultimately that's not really any of my business. Once you decide that people have a right to decide something, there is no going back and complaining about how they made the decision - it's also their right to make it in whichever way they want.

Whether I'm being irrational and exclude you because you're from Turkey, or I'm being rational and I exclude you because I know you'll vote for a different party to the one I want come election time - it doesn't really matter. What matters is whether I should be able to exclude you at all.

Question, NL:

Are you an anarchist?

Are you an anarchist?
No. I'm anti-collectivist, and I also sympathise with anarchism of various forms, though usually for different reasons than those of the actual anarchists.

But I also know that unless you have everyone actively involved in making an anarchist community work, what you end up is more like Mogadishu, with a lot of people doing whatever they can get away with rather than what is right by others or themselves on a deeper level.

However, with regards to the topic at hand: I'm certainly enough of an individualist to disregard any identification with the nation, people or religion.

My point is, if you think national sovereignty is any kind of useful, you can't maintain it if you just let people walk back and forth across the border and become citizens. You need to have rules. I.E., the people of the country get to decide how many newcomers they want, and who gets to be a newcomer.

Doing that by direct democracy seems to be a good idea.

My point is, if you think national sovereignty is any kind of useful, you can't maintain it if you just let people walk back and forth across the border and become citizens.
Well, what is national sovereignty (assuming a democracy) useful for? There are basically two reasons: firstly, you're safe from crackpots around the world imposing crazy laws on you, and secondly the citizens are free to impose crazy laws on themselves without outside interference.

Are either of these in danger if you ease up the rules on who can and cannot vote? I don't think so.

Much better than citizenship seems to me the idea of "residency". I'm a permanent resident in Australia, meaning I am for all intents and purposes Australian. Except that I'm not a citizen, which means I don't get to vote. I do however get to pay taxes.

So rather than having people vote because they are citizens, how about you just let all residents vote, with various criteria of how long one has to be there to be a resident and so on?

You need to have rules. I.E., the people of the country get to decide how many newcomers they want, and who gets to be a newcomer.
In this case the vote is about citizenship as opposed to simple immigration. Of course, I'm no more keen on limits on immigration than on citizenship, but nonetheless it's a slightly different matter.

Doing that by direct democracy seems to be a good idea.
Direct democracy has a very clear implication: your life depends on how we feel about it.

Maybe it's because I am an immigrant and I, characterwise, don't accept anyone telling me what I can and can't do, but to me having randoms vote on something as essential to my life as immigration or the choice to have my say in how my tax dollars are spent is already going far beyond the line of what I would accept to be in the public domain. Some things are our right not because 50.01% of peasants think they should be.

I don't know how a nation that struts about in leather trousers and manufactures sharp and pointy chocolate bars that hurt people when they eat them (Toblerones) have any right to judge anybody else on colour, religion or anything else for that matter. Bollocks to them. :upyours:

Not allowed to join any organisation or have dual-citizenship on pain of death? A bit harsh, no?

What if they're a member of the Xistan Tiddlywinks Club?

Ok, any organization that advocates the replacement of the US Constitution by force.

You know, revolutionary movements, jihad, etc...

Are either of these in danger if you ease up the rules on who can and cannot vote? I don't think so.

Easily.

You allow free immigration. People from cultures with nowhere near the same respect to individual liberty as your own arrive and vote. You're PWNed.

Maybe it's because I am an immigrant

Your being an immigrant does not have anything to do with it. I hold my views on immigration despite being an immigrant to Israel, and planning to move out to America in a year or two.

Aside from a backwards school board that thinks the Bible is an acceptable scientific textbook? I dunno...

It does not exist.
The school board that passed that curriculum all lost election, then after the new school board removed the curriculum a court blocked it.

Yes I can. And don't take my word for it (you seem to be extremely reluctant to do so), here's an example: Last Carnival (that was this year), a 22 year-old Swiss student was beaten to death by three individuals.

At the same time, more information gets through about earlier, brutal incidents. The trio is said to have striked last carnival already, in Maggia. Norman Gobbi, the Liga Ticinese delegate in the Cantonal Parliament told BLICK: "One of the three was involved in a fight. He attacked a youngster with a broken beer bottle and injured him on the face." According to Gobbi, the offender fled.

The Cantonal Police of Ticino remains silent: "We may not tell anything. The courts are responsible". But Justice Director Luigi Pedrazzini demands "hard and exemplary sentences". More and more Ticinese demand the deportation of the brawlers. Two of them originate from Bosnia, one from Croatia. Two have got a Swiss passport.

/Newspaper article, first hit when you do a Google search on "tessin" and "fasnacht")


There are many different nationalities among that foreign 20%. Eastern Europeans are credited with making the cities unsafe at night and making schools they go to unsafe. Now, either because I'm a psychic and can see the future, or because I've already had this type of discussion before, I can predict that you'll say: Oh but Turaan you burgeois/racist/discriminating sod, this is just ONE... err, THREE examples. Surely you can't base a law on THAT!

Well, here are some statistics for you. The problem with statistics is, that nay-sayers may just simply ignore them and label them biased if they don't agree with it, but THIS (http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/19/03/03/key/verurteilte.html) is straight from the government. The very government that consists of EVERY PARTY EXCEPT THE SVP.

Demographische Merkmale der Verurteilten 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Insgesamt 83'414 89'016 97'601 94'824 97'911

Geschlecht
Männlich 71'315 75'955 83'703 80'975 83'368
Weiblich 12'080 13'017 13'785 13'566 14'141

Alter
bis 20 5'051 5'293 6'111 5'549 5'543
20 bis 24 16'808 18'806 20'877 19'546 19'562
25 bis 29 13'425 14'349 15'570 15'310 16'077
30 bis 34 12'213 12'786 13'557 13'031 13'265
35 bis 39 10'804 11'347 12'045 11'681 11'730
40 bis 44 8'196 8'842 9'915 9'951 10'322
45 bis 49 5'972 6'141 7'120 7'249 7'738
50 bis 54 4'507 4'534 4'931 4'839 5'280
55 bis 59 2'981 3'244 3'513 3'459 3'670
60 bis 64 1'743 1'822 2'011 1'971 2'271
65 und mehr 1'695 1'808 1'838 1'955 2'051

Nationalität
Schweizer 43'184 45'275 49'491 47'326 49'568
Ausländer 40'211 43'697 47'997 47'215 47'941

Ausländer means foreigner. In this chart, it means "person without Swiss citizenship", so it excludes naturalised foreigners.

Jane, you ignorant slut! [/snl reference] :p Ehm, I mean, Turaan you burgeois/racist/discriminating sod. This is just TWO examples - and as far as I can tell there aren't any convictions here either, nor does it serve as good examples of what I was asking for.

And your statistics doesn't help either. We know that a large part of the prison population are foreigners. But will these people be eligable to obtain a Swiss citizenship anyway? Surely they would fail the condition that they need to show compliance with the Swiss rule of law and that they present no danger to Switzerland's internal security. And as such, stricter rules on citizenship - especially a vote as in this case - does little if anything about making Switzerland safer from criminals.

I think the "battle" should be fought over residence permits. If you've fulfilled the criteria after more than 12 years, and you haven't shown that you don't comply with the Swiss rule of law, I see no reason why it should be up for a public vote.

So I still don't see that the questions on citizenship make Switzerland safer and more orderly.

It's their business. Frankly, all those carping about it, seeking to impose their subjective morals upon it, ought to remember that.
Wow, I wouldn't have expected you to agree so vocally that such votes shouldn't be held. Placing yourself on the side of "the Leftists" and for those who would be less discriminating against immigrants... I'm really surprised. But I think it's good that you would support the result of the election :)

I wouldn't as I said I am be Americanized but I wouldn't be American, just like if I went to China and lived there for 20 years knowing a native tounge, the customs the traditions I still wouldn't be Chinese.
Righ, so if you move to a country, you can never become... um... countrified? ...in your mind. If you move to America at age 1 you won't be an American. What if you're born in the country?

On the topic of the thread, I think two things are to be separated from each other:

Do I believe that some of the voters who deny citizenship to non-Europeans do so on a racist basis? Quite likely.

Do I believe it's a bad idea that citizenship be decided by virtue of direct democracy? No. It's possible that there's a majority-racist population in some Swiss towns, and it's possible that they vote based on racist motivation, but let's face it – gaining citizenship in a new country where you immigrate into is not a right.
So you would accept them being turned down on a racist basis? Huh.

Frankly, I'd rather have decisions be made by the people than by unelected bureaucrats. Same reason I think police chiefs, judges, and school boards ought to be directly elected, and that trial should involve juries.
Must be why I would disagree with you on all of the above.

My point is, if you think national sovereignty is any kind of useful, you can't maintain it if you just let people walk back and forth across the border and become citizens.
...that's where residence permits and such come into play, and regulate immigration. Citizenship isn't granted (especially in Switzerland) by walking back and forth across the border. Take a look at the rules - it takes 12 years.

You need to have rules. I.E., the people of the country get to decide how many newcomers they want, and who gets to be a newcomer.

Doing that by direct democracy seems to be a good idea.
You need to have rules, I agree. But what you're overlooking, strangely enough, is what you said above: Some of the people who has met all the criterias, people who have followed the rules and met all the conditions, can still be arbitrarily denied citizenship (on a racist basis). And they won't be given a reason nor a right to appeal. And if that is the system - what's the point, why even have rules?

The lack of predictability in such a system is staggering. And unacceptable, as the Supreme Court said some years ago.

In this case the vote is about citizenship as opposed to simple immigration. Of course, I'm no more keen on limits on immigration than on citizenship, but nonetheless it's a slightly different matter.

It's a very different matter.

Easily.

You allow free immigration. People from cultures with nowhere near the same respect to individual liberty as your own arrive and vote. You're PWNed.
Is that really a plausible scenario?

In Switzerland? None.
Figured as much.
Ok, any organization that advocates the replacement of the US Constitution by force.

You know, revolutionary movements, jihad, etc...

Your whole 'on pain of death' bit is still totally over the top. If I were a betting man I'd wager that membership of a terrorist organisation is not a capital offence in any US State.

Ok, any organization that advocates the replacement of the US Constitution by force.

You know, revolutionary movements, jihad, etc...

Better reasoning, still silly.

You could get that covered through "treason", and then you could include current US citizens as well.

We usually just call them "Yankees," but I know what you mean.

Damn Yankees.

LET'S GO METS!!!!

You're suprised that there are jerks everywhere? Or was that sarcastic? If so, you forgot your ":rolleyes:" smilie.



QFT. Why stay in a place that doesn't want you?

The lack of exclamatory or interrogative punctuation was meant to point out that yes, I was being sarcastic by making a statement. Like looking up during a thunderstorm and saying, "Oh. It's raining."

Righ, so if you move to a country, you can never become... um... countrified? ...in your mind. If you move to America at age 1 you won't be an American. What if you're born in the country?

Well I did give an example of a friend who was born in the UK, her parents were over there visiting relatives when she was born they stayed a further month before they cam bcak to Australia, her parents are both Australian citizens, and she holds a British passport, as she is a British citizen. Apart from her first month the rest of hjer life she has lived in Australia, does that mean she is British? No does it mean she is Australian? Yes as both her parent sare Australian (5th Generation).

Of course what you are syaing is that if I was born in China I am then Chinese? Even if I mo9ved to China now and lived there for 25 years, leanring a language knowing and abiding by the rules, customs and traditions of China, that still dosen't make me Chinese even if I get a Chinese passport.

Some things are our right not because 50.01% of peasants think they should be.

Peasants?

Ok, why the hell are you, and many others on the internet, referring to humanity at large as 'peasants' and 'masses' and other terms like that?

Seriously, what the hell up with that?

You think you are so much better than everyone else to refer to them as peasants?

Are you filthy rich or something? Did you get straight A's in school? You think your something special?

Are you filthy rich or something? Did you get straight A's in school? You think your something special?

Maybe it's because he doesn't mix possesive adjectives with contractions.

*runs*