An interesting look at immigration systems elsewhere in the world

[Fenixgoon]

As much as the US desperately needs reform to immigration policies, it is much easier to become a citizen here than in many other places. The system in Switzerland is quite burdensome

It's pretty shocking to compare the restrictions the Swiss have versus what the requirements are here in the US.

Becoming a naturalised citizen is harder in Switzerland than almost anywhere else in Europe, and voters are to decide on Sunday whether to make it easier for third-generation immigrants.

"I went to school with kids who were not Swiss," says campaigner Stefan Egli. "And I always wondered why I had different rights: they were born and raised here just as I was. Why should I get the right to vote the day I turned 18 and not them?"

Being born in Switzerland does not guarantee citizenship, so non-Swiss must typically wait 12 years before applying, taking tests, going for local government interviews and often paying thousands of Swiss francs in fees.

The new proposal would allow people born here, whose parents and grandparents also lived here permanently, to avoid some of that bureaucracy.

Mr Egli's campaign group, Operation Libero, objects mainly to the strict vetting procedure. Aimed at ensuring that new citizens are well integrated, it can appear absurd.

Town councils have the final say. They are free to ask candidates all sorts of questions, and citizenship interviews can include requests to name local cheeses or mountains, and queries about skiing ability. Checks are sometimes made with neighbours to ensure there are no intractable arguments.

Swiss or not Swiss?
Supporters argue the system is far superior to the more anonymous systems in neighbouring France and Germany.

But critics say the rules verge on the insulting for people whose families have been in Switzerland for three generations. Campaigners use posters of pairs of real people: Vanja and Vania, Manuel and Manuel, inviting passers by to spot the difference.

The point is that one is Swiss, and the other is not. Vanja and Vania were both born and have spent their lives here. But only Vanja has Swiss nationality and, significantly in the Swiss system of direct democracy, she has the right to vote.

"It's not fair, we share the same story," says Vanja. "She was born in Berne, I was born in Lucerne; we went to school, we grew up in Switzerland, that's the only life we know. I can participate in democracy in Switzerland, and she can't."

Vania's parents and grandparents lived and worked in Switzerland, but remained Italian. Vania could apply to be Swiss, but is reluctant to do so if it means having to pay up and prove herself to the country she was born in.

"I won't put myself through that," she says. "I am the same as Vanja. I was born here, I live and work here, I pay taxes."

Vania, 23, is also frustrated that applicants need to have lived in the same local community for at least two years. "What if I want to change my job and move?"

Not every would-be citizen sees the system as a problem.

"You know they are going to ask you questions about politics, about the village, your circle of connections, what you do, why you want to be Swiss," says Chris Tattersall, originally from the UK.

He applied to be Swiss the moment he had satisfied his 12-year residency requirement.

"Anyone who has been here a significant amount of time and has a desire and motivation to be Swiss would find it easy… unless of course you've upset the neighbours."

Will it open the floodgates?
Whatever the neighbours say, Sunday's vote changes nothing for first-generation immigrants like Chris. Only about 24,000 people like Vania who are grandchildren of immigrants would be eligible.

That has not stopped opponents warning that relaxing the law could open the floodgates to thousands of unchecked, unintegrated new citizens.

A poster of woman in a burka (a rarity in Switzerland) suggests that "uncontrolled citizenship" could lead to the "Islamisation" of the country.

Claudio Zanetti of the right-wing Swiss People's Party believes that rather than asking for simplified citizenship, third-generation immigrants should be explaining why they have been so slow to apply.

"If you are here for three generations and you never tried, why should it be made easier for you to get it? Citizenship is something special. The longer you wait, the harder it should get."

Over the past 30 years, three previous attempts to relax the rules have been defeated. This time, polls suggest the vote will be close. Big cities back the idea, while more conservative rural areas oppose it.

Vania says all she really wants is for her home country to recognise that she belongs.

 

[alcoholbob]

Even Canada is much more restrictive than the United States, the "bastion of liberals" that they are.

 

[First]

Yes, they're an extreme example. Another extreme example; Japan. How's their population and birth rate collapse going?

Besides, look at Germany and France, they ain't exactly suffering from migration.

 

[alcoholbob]

Yes, they're an extreme example. Another extreme example; Japan. How's their population and birth rate collapse going?

Besides, look at Germany and France, they ain't exactly suffering from migration.

Japan will still be a first world country, particularly as they are world leaders in automation and robotics pioneering, whereas in countries where ultra conservative religious people are out-breeding secular liberals like in Western Europe, Israel, and even in the U.S., I don't have such rosy long-term views. Demographics is destiny.

 

[First]

Japan will still be a first world country, particularly as they are world leaders in automation and robotics pioneering, whereas in countries where ultra conservative religious people are out-breeding secular liberals like in Western Europe, Israel, and even in the U.S., I don't have such rosy long-term views. Demographics is destiny.

They may be first world for a little while, but they will grow substantially less over time with consistent population collapse and that inevitably leads to total economic collapse without a serious stablizing change of some sort.

In terms of religious conservatives, I think that definition has already changed for the better very substantially over time so I am not yet ready to say that is a terrible long-term trend.

 

[alcoholbob]

I'm simply less comfortable living in a world where there are large numbers of warmonging evangelicals, ultra-orthodox jews, and wahhabists and salafists becoming pluralities in some societies. I think it's a strange thing to say "changed for the better" unless you mean the rightward shift of the Overton window since 9/11 and the normalization in societies across the world of more open acceptance of conservative religious views is somehow a good thing.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Yes, they're an extreme example. Another extreme example; Japan. How's their population and birth rate collapse going?

Besides, look at Germany and France, they ain't exactly suffering from migration.

France has a massive underclass of unemployed immigrants, and the demographics are only swinging further in that direction. France is hardly a shining beacon of Western success, as evidenced by the rising support for reactionary/nationalist groups in their own country.

Germany is doing well, but that's because they're the largest beneficiaries of the EU's system, with plenty of factories making gizmos packed with Turkish immigrants.

They may be first world for a little while, but they will grow substantially less over time with consistent population collapse and that inevitably leads to total economic collapse without a serious stablizing change of some sort.

In terms of religious conservatives, I think that definition has already changed for the better very substantially over time so I am not yet ready to say that is a terrible long-term trend.

Do you have examples of nations in the past that have collapsed economically primarily due to population decline?

 

[First]

France has a massive underclass of unemployed immigrants, and the demographics are only swinging further in that direction. France is hardly a shining beacon of Western success, as evidenced by the rising support for reactionary/nationalist groups in their own country.

We have our own rising reactionary/nationalist groups, that doesn't say anything especially dire about France (or the US) until we see the policy implications. It's also a phenenom we've seen around the world recently, as movements in Germany and Britain show (particularly the UK's Brexit vote). The underclass you speak of certainly does not exist in a way that threatens France's long term health, whether you look at the size of the underclass, underemployed, etc. Their quality of living and economy continue to be in very good shape.

Germany is doing well, but that's because they're the largest beneficiaries of the EU's system, with plenty of factories making gizmos packed with Turkish immigrants.

They're a powerful economy, naturally they will benefit greatly from the EU system, it's actually pretty much common sense. Though the EU and in particular the way the Euro works politically is untenable in the long term because countries give up their monetary independence and that makes it much more difficult to deal with economic shocks and causes issues of lack of political representation when regs are handed down from Brussels and some small province in Belgium can't elect people to do jack about it.

Do you have examples of nations in the past that have collapsed economically primarily due to population decline?

Japan has nearly 2 decades of economic stagnation, so already those results aren't particularly good by any measure you could invent. Of course, the fracturing of the Roman Empire into smaller factions of countries 1800 yrs ago didn't exactly bode well for them, but I won't pretend to be a historian on that front.

 

[Phokus]

Even Canada is much more restrictive than the United States, the "bastion of liberals" that they are.

This isn't true:

https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-010-x2011001-eng.cfm

"In 2011, Canada had a foreign-born populationFootnote1 of about 6,775,800 people. They represented 20.6% of the total population, the highest proportion among the G8 countries."

Also, while the US has the idea of a 'melting pot' (where immigrants assimilate into a culture), Canada believes in true multiculturalism.

 

[bshole]

Japan will still be a first world country, particularly as they are world leaders in automation and robotics pioneering, whereas in countries where ultra conservative religious people are out-breeding secular liberals like in Western Europe, Israel, and even in the U.S., I don't have such rosy long-term views. Demographics is destiny.

I wish I was young again and perplexed by the old people worried about the world falling apart. Why do we have to be programmed this way? All this worrying and chattering teeth will accomplish nothing except drive us to an early grave. What in the hell was evolution thinking?

 

[bshole]

Japan has nearly 2 decades of economic stagnation, so already those results aren't particularly good by any measure you could invent. Of course, the fracturing of the Roman Empire into smaller factions of countries 1800 yrs ago didn't exactly bode well for them, but I won't pretend to be a historian on that front.

Japan beats the US in many meaningful categories from economic to crime. Japan is an order of magnitude safer than America.

 

[JSt0rm]

reposted from another thread...

american culture is all culture. This is the greatest human accomplishment ever made. Just because some backwoods people who have no exposure think its a weakness means nothing in the long run. Those simple people have lived in this America along side those who understand since its inception. In the past the hated people were the irish or the german or whatever other group is "new" and foreign. Time normalizes these new cultures and assimilates the good parts into the broader culture. This is operating as it should be.

 

[JSt0rm]

japan is an island. They are ok with the economy as it is. They dont need or want infinite unsustainable growth. That isnt their model.

 

[1prophet]

Yes, they're an extreme example. Another extreme example; Japan. How's their population and birth rate collapse going?

Besides, look at Germany and France, they ain't exactly suffering from migration.

They aren't suffering because you use the definition that a house must burn down completely before you officially declare it a fire and then only if it meets certain criteria.

 

[werepossum]

They may be first world for a little while, but they will grow substantially less over time with consistent population collapse and that inevitably leads to total economic collapse without a serious stablizing change of some sort.

In terms of religious conservatives, I think that definition has already changed for the better very substantially over time so I am not yet ready to say that is a terrible long-term trend.

I don't think that's true. Even today we're starting to see issues with keeping people employed in many nations, with a lot more on the horizon. Many people are talking about a "basic income" - paying people not to work with the assumption that enough people still will choose to work to avoid societal collapse. Assuming Japan survives another half century, its smaller and largely homogeneous population will be a huge advantage. Even today, Japan's big problem isn't its declining work force, but its lack of raw materials. Until we have a singularity and can remove carbon from the air and build things with it, raw materials will remain our single most limiting factor worldwide, and lack of sufficient workforce (aka mouths to feed) will increasingly be a benefit.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

We have our own rising reactionary/nationalist groups, that doesn't say anything especially dire about France (or the US) until we see the policy implications. It's also a phenenom we've seen around the world recently, as movements in Germany and Britain show (particularly the UK's Brexit vote). The underclass you speak of certainly does not exist in a way that threatens France's long term health, whether you look at the size of the underclass, underemployed, etc. Their quality of living and economy continue to be in very good shape.

And what's the common denominator behind all of those movements?

France has 10.5% unemployment; for ethnic minorities, it's closer to double of that, for refugees, it's a majority.

They're a powerful economy, naturally they will benefit greatly from the EU system, it's actually pretty much common sense. Though the EU and in particular the way the Euro works politically is untenable in the long term because countries give up their monetary independence and that makes it much more difficult to deal with economic shocks and causes issues of lack of political representation when regs are handed down from Brussels and some small province in Belgium can't elect people to do jack about it.

That's my point

Japan has nearly 2 decades of economic stagnation, so already those results aren't particularly good by any measure you could invent. Of course, the fracturing of the Roman Empire into smaller factions of countries 1800 yrs ago didn't exactly bode well for them, but I won't pretend to be a historian on that front.

The West has been economically stagnant for nearly a decade now, and Japan's GDP per capita is only marginally lower than France's. Japan also has a much stronger economy when it comes to manufacturing and technology, whereas France has been in decline basically since the time of DeGaulle, and is increasingly a service economy. Japan also has a higher take-home income after taxes.

Japan's problem has little to do with their immigration policy and much more to do with 1) hardcore protectionist economic policy (trade makes up less of their economy than pretty much any other first-world nation) and 2) a massive pension/welfare burden due to a massive retiree bubble, exacerbated by the Japanese being the longest-lived people in the world. Bringing in uneducated, low-skilled migrants will do nothing to help their economy when they don't have any kind of employment shortage and when they primarily export mechanical and electrical goods, not food like France does. Well, that and the fact that Japan now also has to compete with South Korea and China.

And on the flipside, crime is an order of magnitude lower in Japan than it is in France, thanks almost certainly due to their cultural homogeneity.

EDIT: I should also point out that South Korea has had some of the greatest growth of any nation over the last few decades, and that they're even more anti-refugee than Japan, all the while having one of the lowest growth rates in the world (albeit not negative like Japan's). The number of people in a country is meaningless; it's the percentage of those people that contribute more than they take that matters.

 

[Victorian Gray]

And, for general interest, the vote mentioned in the article took place this weekend with a very different outcome than the last time they voted on something like this. 60% voted in favor of easing the citizenship process. In 2004 it was 29% in favor of a similar initiative.

"Switzerland has voted to make it easier for third-generation immigrants to become citizens, rejecting rightwing politicians’ complaints that the proposed measures would pose a security risk.

Until now, a fast-track route to citizenship was only open to foreigners who had been married to Swiss citizens for more than six years, including those who have never lived in the country.

The outcome of the referendum on Sunday will open up this easier route to the children of secondos (second-generation immigrants), who number about 24,000 in the country of 8 million inhabitants. Nearly 60% of this group are Italian, followed by people from the Balkans and Turkey.

The constitutional amendment does not make naturalisation an automatic process, and applicants will still be required to prove they are aged 25 or under, were born in Switzerland and visited a school there for at least five years, share Swiss cultural values, speak a national language and do not depend on state aid.

After polls closed at midday, public broadcaster SRF announced that 60.4% had voted in favour of the amendment and 39.6% had voted against."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...es-immigrants-citizenship-rights-islamophobia

As much as the US desperately needs reform to immigration policies, it is much easier to become a citizen here than in many other places. The system in Switzerland is quite burdensome

It's pretty shocking to compare the restrictions the Swiss have versus what the requirements are here in the US.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The outcome of the referendum on Sunday will open up this easier route to the children of secondos (second-generation immigrants), who number about 24,000 in the country of 8 million inhabitants. Nearly 60% of this group are Italian, followed by people from the Balkans and Turkey.

All those Muslim Italians and Serbs, amirite? Further, I hope you realize even with that law in effect, they would still have far stricter citizenship requirements than us, notably a continued absence of birth-right citizenship. If Republicans tried to pass a constitutional amendment allowing laws even halfway to what Switzerland's most liberal immigration laws are, you would see a shitstorm of unprecedented fury.

This is the same Switzerland that banned construction of new minarets several years ago, btw. Switzerland is not a welcoming nation to outsiders.

 

[Victorian Gray]

All those Muslim Italians and Serbs, amirite? Further, I hope you realize even with that law in effect, they would still have far stricter citizenship requirements than us, notably a continued absence of birth-right citizenship. If Republicans tried to pass a constitutional amendment allowing laws even halfway to what Switzerland's most liberal immigration laws are, you would see a shitstorm of unprecedented fury.

This is the same Switzerland that banned construction of new minarets several years ago, btw. Switzerland is not a welcoming nation to outsiders.

That's nice. It was sunny here today.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

That's nice. It was sunny here today.

Try not to melt from it, snowflake.

 

[Svnla]

Interesting reading about birthright citizenship regulation in Europe - https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...5fe02c-f11e-11e6-9fb1-2d8f3fc9c0ed_story.html

 

[Victorian Gray]

Try not to melt from it, snowflake.

It rained yesterday but the long term forecast looks to be not bad.

 

[glenn1]

As much as the US desperately needs reform to immigration policies, it is much easier to become a citizen here than in many other places. The system in Switzerland is quite burdensome

It's pretty shocking to compare the restrictions the Swiss have versus what the requirements are here in the US.

Immigration isn't the problem per se, it's the lawbreaking that occurs as a byproduct of keeping our immigration quotas too low. You can declare "build a wall" or "we're a sanctuary city" all day long but unless and until you agree to fix that basic disconnect between legal immigration supply and demand it's going to be an endless problem. For most voters who cite immigration as a concern it's about the lawbreaking aspect of illegal immigration that's a concern and much less about whether they're brown.

 

[First]

I don't think that's true. Even today we're starting to see issues with keeping people employed in many nations, with a lot more on the horizon. Many people are talking about a "basic income" - paying people not to work with the assumption that enough people still will choose to work to avoid societal collapse. Assuming Japan survives another half century, its smaller and largely homogeneous population will be a huge advantage. Even today, Japan's big problem isn't its declining work force, but its lack of raw materials. Until we have a singularity and can remove carbon from the air and build things with it, raw materials will remain our single most limiting factor worldwide, and lack of sufficient workforce (aka mouths to feed) will increasingly be a benefit.

Population decline is never a good thing and there are, frankly, no particularly good examples of thriving countries with declining populations I can think of. More nominal mouths to feed isn't an issue if the same % of the population is still working. Basic income isn't really a population issue, it's a productivity issue, and is based on technological change which, frankly, is impossible to predict. We could all be on basic incomes in 75 yrs or 100 yrs but if we're in flying cars and mining raw materials in space, I fail to see how basic incomes would be disastrous due to population increases.

 

[First]

And what's the common denominator behind all of those movements?

France has 10.5% unemployment; for ethnic minorities, it's closer to double of that, for refugees, it's a majority.

France has always averaged high single digits unemployment, not sure you're aware of that but it is indeed in line with their long-run average. Where is your data for ethic minorities and refugees, and is there evidence that is out of line with historic averages in France?

That's my point

Um, Germany has been the most generous of the EU countries in refugee intake, yet your point is, uh, what exactly? They "benefit" from the EU? How do you explain their success "despite" massive immigration including most recently a ton of Syrians?

The West has been economically stagnant for nearly a decade now, and Japan's GDP per capita is only marginally lower than France's. Japan also has a much stronger economy when it comes to manufacturing and technology, whereas France has been in decline basically since the time of DeGaulle, and is increasingly a service economy. Japan also has a higher take-home income after taxes.

Huh? I don't think you understand what you're researching. "The west" (presumably, the US) has grown by leaps and bounds since 2007, which is far and away more than Japan. Per capita income for a country whose population is declining is a misleading statistic, what matters is total wealth, relative pay and wages, etc. None of that outstrips the U.S., Germany or France. See here and here.

Japan's problem has little to do with their immigration policy and much more to do with 1) hardcore protectionist economic policy (trade makes up less of their economy than pretty much any other first-world nation) and 2) a massive pension/welfare burden due to a massive retiree bubble, exacerbated by the Japanese being the longest-lived people in the world. Bringing in uneducated, low-skilled migrants will do nothing to help their economy when they don't have any kind of employment shortage and when they primarily export mechanical and electrical goods, not food like France does. Well, that and the fact that Japan now also has to compete with South Korea and China.

With all due respect, you have it completely backwards. Their declining population is, in part, contributing to the labor shortages they have seen. Additionally, and I know it may seem counter-intuitive to you, but generally speaking a juiced-up immigration/population (and not all low-skilled, btw, you're making shit up) will inevitably create more demand, which creates more businesses, which creates more jobs, which would make Japan's labor shortage start to significantly tighten up. They have a real problem with young folks unable to get work, due to a very old population that continues to work, declining total population due to low birthrate (lack of interest in sex, ironic for such a porn capital) and to be fair their crazy regs on hiring/firing based on seniority.

Anyway, please review this labor paper on Japan for further clarity on why foreign labor is critical for them, including to address their labor shortages. I could link a thousand articles, but here's one from the WSJ on Japan I quickly found on Google.

And on the flipside, crime is an order of magnitude lower in Japan than it is in France, thanks almost certainly due to their cultural homogeneity.

Speculative at best, though certainly possible. Of course, gun laws might have something to do with it too. Lots of things go into crime, though I'm no criminologist.

EDIT: I should also point out that South Korea has had some of the greatest growth of any nation over the last few decades, and that they're even more anti-refugee than Japan, all the while having one of the lowest growth rates in the world (albeit not negative like Japan's). The number of people in a country is meaningless; it's the percentage of those people that contribute more than they take that matters.

Again, you're just really, really wrong. Review the IMF paper for further detail. Hell, just read the abstract to get the gist of it.