Without these kinds of policies you'll just see the rise of more "new-right" parties like One Nation in Australia and Reform in the United Kingdom (yes, I am aware both are not "new", but they are newly popular).
It turns out there is a sufficient amount of immigration that is disliked by the populace that they will dump support for long-standing parties in favour of those who promise change.
The UK far right got what they wanted with Brexit, yet they are still complaining. There's no evidence indicating that capitulating to their extreme policies will somehow lead to them becoming friendlier to the political establishment.
Voters rejected a proposal, and your response is that the result will be more parties that support the type of thing that the majority of voters just rejected?
In a sense, you may be correct, but who cares? The majority of people voted against xenophobia, some people are still super xenophobic and will continue to try to implement xenophobic policies, and the majority of people will keep voting against them.
Not sure if there is any in-depth analysis across more countries about this pattern, but also in this votum, densely populated urban areas had a clear stance against this votum, whereas the majority of votes have come from rural areas. So I am not as certain as you are whether the trend extrapolates as outlined - I rather imagine that the polarization will increase even further across these two segments, with lived and experienced realities drifting apart.
The Swiss people voted in a folks referendum, not per parties’ delegate. Thus, it’s not politics as in other countries but the direct responses of the population. Switzerland is a direct democracy that doesn’t need alt right parties to “revenge” and support chance.
Switzerland already has such a party, the SVP (UDC in French), and in fact they put forward the initiative.
This was widely understood to be a vote on how well the SVP can appeal to the center. Turns out pretty well but it's not entirely surprising given their recent election results.
So what will realistically happen, if we look at the trajectories of other countries, is that immigration will continue to rise, more people will be peaked by the discontent it can sow, and the popularity of this party will rise further.
>more people will be peaked by the discontent it can sow,
I think this is sort of begging the question a bit, in the sense of assuming a specific conclusion is true when asking the question of whether it's true.
In particular, I don't think it's demonstrably true that immigration sows discontent. I do think that it can be shown based on the US example that far-right parties looking to sow discontent often scapegoat immigration as the cause for societal problems that may have nothing to do with immigration (like the classic "your cost of living has gone up coincidentally at the same time that corporate profits are at an all-time high and regulatory capture is widespread; it must be immigrants to blame for things being expensive!")
And it's criticisms like this that isolate people further from each other politically and emboldens support for the parties you dislike.
There are valid and reasonable reasons to dislike large-scale immigration beyond supporting despots for the sake of doing so. The mainstream parties are not offering alternatives, can you blame those who are disaffected by this rapid societal change from reaching out to support the first name that voices critique at policies they dislike?
>The mainstream parties are not offering alternatives,
This part rings a little hollow when it's one of those mainstream parties that's doing the demagoguery.
>can you blame those who are disaffected by this rapid societal change from reaching out to support the first name that voices critique at policies they dislike?
Yes and no.
Can I blame people for recognizing that something in their life isn't working? No. Can I blame them for willfully accepting claims that offer no attempt at proving themselves with evidence, and that consist almost entirely of "people who look different than you are the only reason you have any problems"? Yes, because the average person shouldn't be so easily duped, and if they are, it's generally because they already wanted a reason to blame "those people" and anyone offering the faintest excuse ought not be "good enough".
Without these kinds of policies you'll just see the rise of more "new-right" parties like One Nation in Australia and Reform in the United Kingdom (yes, I am aware both are not "new", but they are newly popular).
It turns out there is a sufficient amount of immigration that is disliked by the populace that they will dump support for long-standing parties in favour of those who promise change.
The UK far right got what they wanted with Brexit, yet they are still complaining. There's no evidence indicating that capitulating to their extreme policies will somehow lead to them becoming friendlier to the political establishment.
Voters rejected a proposal, and your response is that the result will be more parties that support the type of thing that the majority of voters just rejected?
In a sense, you may be correct, but who cares? The majority of people voted against xenophobia, some people are still super xenophobic and will continue to try to implement xenophobic policies, and the majority of people will keep voting against them.
Disliking mass immigration isn't xenophobia.
Not sure if there is any in-depth analysis across more countries about this pattern, but also in this votum, densely populated urban areas had a clear stance against this votum, whereas the majority of votes have come from rural areas. So I am not as certain as you are whether the trend extrapolates as outlined - I rather imagine that the polarization will increase even further across these two segments, with lived and experienced realities drifting apart.
The Swiss people voted in a folks referendum, not per parties’ delegate. Thus, it’s not politics as in other countries but the direct responses of the population. Switzerland is a direct democracy that doesn’t need alt right parties to “revenge” and support chance.
Switzerland already has such a party, the SVP (UDC in French), and in fact they put forward the initiative.
This was widely understood to be a vote on how well the SVP can appeal to the center. Turns out pretty well but it's not entirely surprising given their recent election results.
Yeah.
So what will realistically happen, if we look at the trajectories of other countries, is that immigration will continue to rise, more people will be peaked by the discontent it can sow, and the popularity of this party will rise further.
>more people will be peaked by the discontent it can sow,
I think this is sort of begging the question a bit, in the sense of assuming a specific conclusion is true when asking the question of whether it's true.
In particular, I don't think it's demonstrably true that immigration sows discontent. I do think that it can be shown based on the US example that far-right parties looking to sow discontent often scapegoat immigration as the cause for societal problems that may have nothing to do with immigration (like the classic "your cost of living has gone up coincidentally at the same time that corporate profits are at an all-time high and regulatory capture is widespread; it must be immigrants to blame for things being expensive!")
Imagine taking away from the last century of world history the lesson that we should proactively give in to demagogues.
And it's criticisms like this that isolate people further from each other politically and emboldens support for the parties you dislike.
There are valid and reasonable reasons to dislike large-scale immigration beyond supporting despots for the sake of doing so. The mainstream parties are not offering alternatives, can you blame those who are disaffected by this rapid societal change from reaching out to support the first name that voices critique at policies they dislike?
>The mainstream parties are not offering alternatives,
This part rings a little hollow when it's one of those mainstream parties that's doing the demagoguery.
>can you blame those who are disaffected by this rapid societal change from reaching out to support the first name that voices critique at policies they dislike?
Yes and no.
Can I blame people for recognizing that something in their life isn't working? No. Can I blame them for willfully accepting claims that offer no attempt at proving themselves with evidence, and that consist almost entirely of "people who look different than you are the only reason you have any problems"? Yes, because the average person shouldn't be so easily duped, and if they are, it's generally because they already wanted a reason to blame "those people" and anyone offering the faintest excuse ought not be "good enough".
Can you list some of these reasons?
Immigration has been directly responsible in the last decade for the huge run-up in housing prices in New Zealand.
It is not _the only reason_, but it is a big reason.
Yes. Yes I can and do blame them.
https://archive.fo/BuQeu
Three questions:
1. If i were to magically appear in Switzerland as say a middle easterner or random non european national how long can i stay? How would i be removed?
2. How long as a regular person without a job or special skills until i can be citizen?
3. How often do either of the two above happen?
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48529149