This is the big difference between Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis. Jus Sanguinis really is the norm for most of the Old World. Many nations have pretty hard core citizenship laws. Hell, a lot of them have pretty hardcore visa and resident laws.
It isn’t just the US who has a disdain for unfiltered immigrant. And given their much larger network of social services, they need to regulate the flow, as it can put a strain on these services. But this is one reason why the EU is popular/unpopular - much greater freedom and opportunity for people to move around.
Still, it seems the Swiss test is pretty problematic. I think ones measure of being a lawful, productive citizen is more important than knowing which sport is more popular or where they shop.
To some degree i understand what some countries are attempting to do. They are trying to preserve what makes those countries unique and also they are proud of their heritage and culture. But then it starts to become… archaic and backwards because ultimately culture is meant to evolve and change. Attempts to “preserve their heritage” devolves into blanket racism against foreigners and ignores progress the world needs to be making. Ultimately it is a losing battle. There are better ways to preserve culture and history.
Hmm, so perhaps people should not be able to become US citizens, for example, unless they endorse the “core values” of our current government? And espouse the use of English only, as per Ma Ferguson?
As fault-riddled as it may be, I think I’d prefer the juried approach. I’d rather be required to support local shops than required to espouse the various anti-Mexican, anti-Russian or anti-Chinese bigotries that have been promoted by US regimes in my lifetime.
But you know, we’re basically talking about processes for extending human rights to outsiders. If there’s a globally applicable simple solution I don’t think it has anything to do with what questions to ask, or even what gantlets should be run.
And that’s exactly why these Swiss xenophobes are careful about handing out citizenship to everyone. What kind of world is it where people don’t give a flying anything about their local communities? Or even worse, where people hate their local communities and want them to disappear, because they don’t hold all the right elite opinions du jour?
And speaking of these Swiss xenophobes, ultimately, the real reason they rejected this applicant was because of… xenophobia. They want to stay homogenous, not just in terms of higher level things such as speaking the Swiss local language, but in terms of shared ancestry. It’s one thing to be born there and speak the language. It’s another thing to have generations from the same area. No one who has had many generations of ancestors from an area says “I don’t give a flying ___ about the local community”.
Maybe it doesn’t? Or it doesn’t care about these labels, being bestowed upon it by internet commentators? And would rather have the country run the way its citizens feel like running it?
You do realise that it is those pesky immigrants who keep those social services afloat? Both in terms of disproportionately working in the care sector and by paying taxes?
It is not by accident that Germany has welcomed 1 Million Syrian refugees. They need tax payers for the future.
As to the Swiss, their entire economy is pretty much run by foreigners. Apparently, 25% of the population are foreigners and you can bet your bottom dollars that they are hard working foreigners. Because otherwise they would be kicked out with gusto.
Given the above context the behaviour described in the article towards a young woman who was born in the country and lived there all her life there, is outrageous–and that is a kind way of putting it.
The Swiss are pretty reticent; Geneva isn’t a party town - quite Calvinist. The Catholic cities are a bit looser Lausaune and Montreaux are much more fun. Perhaps if Ms Holten were more cimcumspect instead of being an annoyance to her neighbors she might feel at home - Don’t shit in your own backyard maybe?
Ms Holten, a vegan and animal rights activist, has campaigned against the use of cowbells in the village and her actions have annoyed the locals:
I lived for many years in a small, Midwestern farm town, and was once asked by the city manager if I would consider finishing out the term of a council member who had left. During my confirmation I was asked why I thought I was qualified to serve, considering that I hadn’t been born there. I responded that I thought the fact that I had owned a house and lived there for 16 years, had raised my family there, and paid my taxes there qualified me. I was confirmed in a split vote, and at the next meeting the same member introduced a motion to rewrite the charter to state that only native born citizens of the city could serve on the council.Only the city attorney’s warning that a) there would be a lawsuit, and b) he would resign so that he could be the one to bring it, prevented the vote. Good times, good times …
Of the current government, no. Of the state, absolutely. I’ll assume you understand the distinction.
Not “English only”, but English as the nation-state’s primary language, yes.
What I’m describing, by the way, is exactly what the U.S. demands of its prospective citizens. As deliberately broken as other parts of the naturalisation process is here, this part works reasonably well for a country that considers itself a a Western liberal democracy (and a capitalist country that doesn’t force one to patronise certain shops).
My father’s a genealogist and recently discovered that our family is directly descended from Adam Neff of Switzerland; apparently the Adam Neff House has some sort of ancient scroll that declares that his decedents shall always be Swiss citizens.
My dad wrote to them to ask about taking advantage of that ancient decree and they essentially laughed at him via email.
Certainly the point and reason immigration in general is GOOD is that it in increases the economy all around - more work produced, more goods consumed, etc.
The specific issue with the Syrian refugees is a different situation. First off, they are refugees, so this is a desperate, life threatening situation.
Second, its a large, fast influx and that is straining things. You’re right if all of them got jobs and started adding to the system it would be a boon to the German economy. But last I read, that isn’t happening because of various reason the refugees have a crazy high unemployment rate. Most of them lack the language skills, and many lack marketable skills. Add to that they are being segregated in many places, and you are just begging to repeat the ghettos of the US full of disenfranchised, discriminated, 2nd class citizens with chronically poor job skills and sub par education… well wait, they aren’t even citizens.
ETA - these people went to war to promote the “master race”, you really think a lot of them are opening Syrians with open arms?
To be clear, I am empathetic to taking in people left homeless by war. And I am very pro immigration here in the US. I don’t buy into a lot of hype about people unwilling to learn the language and assimilate - they will. My grandma had a Czech accent even though she was born in Texas. She too lived in a community full of immigrants that kept their culture and language and religion, and looked little like their fellow Americans. But things change and they were as American as anyone when they died, even though my grandma still has he accent.
My ex-MiL tried to get Polish citizenship for my kid. I think she spent 2 years of paper work filing and hoop jumping before giving up. I even went to St Louis (3 hr drive) with my inlaws to literally just sign a piece of paper. She said the guy was an old school Communist Bureaucrat and loved playing power games. He didn’t even say hi to me
Unless a nation-state is truly desperate (and frequently despite that), citizenship is never a bulk commodity. Citizenship being an intangible good, an artificial scarcity will always be imposed. The question is, by what means? A standardised system that places the national interest (as defined by its constitution) first is the best starting point because the rules are understood by all and the game can be played regardless of immutable characteristics.
Additional means (e.g. a system that gives leeway to local bigots like Switzerland’s, Canada’s policy of limiting itself mostly to the very wealthy or refugees, or the U.S.'s expensive and exhausting-by-design process) are all up for criticism.
