Immigration Watch International (2)

Thursday, April 25, 2013

Switzerland restricts EU immigration

Switzerland has announced that it will extend immigration limits to all European Union countries amid pressure from the political far-right.

Switzerland, which is not an EU member, already has a quota in place for eight Eastern European members that joined the bloc in 2004, as well as special, stricter regulations for the newest members Bulgaria and Romania, which joined in 2007.

The justice and police ministry said on Wednewsday that it would now limit resident permits to a maximum of 53,700 annually for citizens from the remaining 17 EU countries.

Under an agreement with the European Union, Switzerland can invoke this so-called safeguard clause if immigration rises above a certain level.

The decision drew criticism from EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, who said it ran counter to agreements between the 27-member bloc and the Alpine country.

"These measures disregard the great benefits that the free movement of persons brings to the citizens of both Switzerland and the EU," she added.

The government's step came after the far-right Swiss People's Party and the right-wing ecological group Ecopop launched initiatives for referenda to slow immigration.

The overall number of immigrants had exceeded those leaving the country by 60,000 to 80,000 over the past years, the ministry said.

"The government does not view the invocation of the safeguard clause as an unfriendly act towards the EU," Justice Minister Simonetta Sommaruga told reporters. "It's a fact that there is unease among the population, and it's necessary to take this unease seriously," she added.

SOURCE

Recent posts at CIS below

See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.

Publications

1. Asking for Trust, Evading Verification: A Chronology of Border Patrol and DHS Positions on Border Security Metrics

2. Dynamic Scoring of Immigration? A Critique of Douglas Holtz-Eakin's Analysis

3. Obama's Deportation Claims Disputed: Higher Immigrant Deportation Numbers, But Fewer Deportations

4. Enforcement Deceptive in Immigration Bill

5. Gang of 8 Bill Doesn't Reflect Reality of U.S. Labor Market

Blogs

6. McCain and Napolitano Clash: The Battle of Border Metrics

7. Update: Most Terrorist Incidents in the Past Five Years Committed by Foreign-Born Individuals

8. Boston Bombers May Complicate Matters for the Gang of Eight

9. Immigration Reform in the National Interest: The Jordan Commission vs. the "Gang of Eight"

10. Was Bad News for Gun Control Good for Immigration Bill?

11. Immigration Reform in the National Interest: An Audacious and Unnecessary "Grand Plan"

12. Senate Bill: New Promised Land, or Son of IRCA?

13. The Complete Phoniness of the Gang of 8 Immigration Bill

14. Some Thoughts about the Waiting Periods for the Amnestied

15. Question for the Gang of Eight: What Color Is the Sky on Your World?

16. On the Side, Let's Have 4.7 Million More Extended Family Immigrants

17. Borjas Charted: Who Benefits Economically from Immigration?

18. Do We Really Need Huge Numbers of Foreign Workers?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.

Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.

The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:

1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.

2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.

3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.

4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.

5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.

6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.

I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.

Immigration Watch International (2)

Thursday, April 25, 2013

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors