Exit polls show Swiss anti-immigrant party on track for record election showing
Exit polls show Swiss anti-immigrant party on track for record election showing
Early projections put the far-right and euroskeptic Swiss People’s Party on track to win 29 percent of the vote in Sunday’s national vote.
The Swiss People’s Party (SVP), which centered its campaign on anti-immigrant rhetoric, is projected to win 29 percent of the vote, up from 25.6 percent four years ago and higher than pre-election polls. It has been the country’s largest party since 2003.
You're viewing a single thread.
As with any issue balance is the key. Being anti immigration is wrong, but also letting in anyone without strong stipulations is wrong as well.
As a lefty, the problem with the left, and the reason they are losing this issue, is because they want to be so PC that they won't even allow discussion on the issue for fear of not looking ultra progressive to their friends.
If you want to immigrate into a country, you must 100% be aligned with the values of your new country. You can't come in and demand that people respect your religious views if they are anti women or anti homosexuals or anti trans.
To many of my progressive brothers and sisters seem to be ok tolerating intolerance. If your religion demands that your wife walks behind you pushing the stroller with a burka on in 40 degree weather, while you get to walk around in shorts and flip-flops we're going to have a problem.
Sounds like a pretty well constructed straw man woven in with some genuinely disturbing nativist stances (e.g., 100% value alignment as a precondition). And all in response to an article where nothing is mentioned about any positions on immigration from any of the other parties, most of which (including the socialists) just maintained their size. But yes, I'm sure "as a lefty" you think "balance is key" on every issue and somehow manage to use the rise of the right to talk about how it's really progressives' fault.
You've perfectly demonstrated the validity of my argument and why we are the left losing this argument. You're basically accusing me of being alt right or fuck else who knows, because I believe this issue isn't just let anyone in who wants to get in.
It's idiotic I even have to say this, but one glance at my comment history shows that I'm not some both sides dickhead.
Again, it's sad I even have to point this out, but here we are.
I've always said with immigration, bring your heritage, your cultures, your customs your food, but they MUST not conflict with values of liberty and equality for all.
The fact that this is controversial to you just shows how warped a person's thinking and perspective can become in the persuit of pc culture.
I'm accusing you of being a center-left "smart Democrat" who blames right wing radicalization of the populace based on deep seated and enduring prejudices on "progressives". I did briefly look at your comment history and just a page in you're once again making a straw man about progressives while prefacing it with "I'm as liberal as it gets". And all while capping this response with a "PC culture" complaint that's more or less saying "woke mind virus". It's basically just early Bill Maherism.
And I'll reiterate again that your blame the left comment for anti-immigrant prejudice is in response to an article where none of the immigration positions of the left parties were even mentioned.
No. I blame us losing to right wing candidates by making idiotic stands that do not appeal to regular people.
Saying open borders anyone can come in just won't fly. Hell, if it won't fly with someone like me who's more left than average it has no chance of succeeding.
So you can't scratch your head and wonder why are the crazy rights winning, when you couldn't even get liberal people on board.
I don't know if we are talking past each other, I'm simply saying there needs to be solid requirements for immigration.
Requirements that defend freedom and autonomy for everyone. We don't need to tap dance around the fact that religion in general, but Islam in particular does not have a good track record here.
No one says any of those things!
You just make up progressive positions to be angry about, mirroring the right wing arguments in the process, while complaining about out of control PC culture like a 90s Third Way Democrat trying to prove they're not one of those crazy liberals who wants to make crime legal for minorities.
If you want to immigrate into a country, you must 100% be aligned with the values of your new country.
It's just hard to say that when a lot of European Colonialism took place in these countries, some gaining independence within the last 100 years (referring to the middle east as alluded to in your last paragraph)
I don't really know where to stand and I don't think you can be in a position that is correct given the effects of colonialism from Europe. The fact that some effects of this colonialism (especially in Africa) have destroyed some countries/cultures, when the natural population didn't "100%" align with the colonizers makes it hard to not sympathise with these people. A lot of these immigrants are leaving their home countries (not all), due to the rippling effects of colonialism.
I should say while I agree with your statement, I don't know how to account for the effects of external influence that may be causing said immigration.
You can take in refugees and immigrants, and expect them to adhere to the law. It's not hard.
It doesn't even make sense, logically speaking. They do not tolerate intolerance, unless the intolerant person has a dark skin, then it's fine. I just don't get it.
this is going to be an unpopular take but you've said a bunch of vaguely-sounding popular things but have missed the main issues with immigration.
Anyone who says they want to limit immigration for cultural reasons (e.g. I may wear a hat you don't like, or speak a different language, or comb my hair in a different way) is lying.
"but so-and-so said..."
they were lying.
It boils down to this: if you can meet a (surprisingly low) wage in your new host country, you are a net benefit to that country and will be welcomed.
All that about burqas, treatment of women, LGBTQ+ rights is irrelevant. All that stuff about assimilating, or values, or tough restrictions is nonsense. Politicians say that stuff all the time. But it's a lie. The truth is in the policy and the policy says: if you earn roughly USD$20k or local equivalent a year: welcome home!
Now people may think it should be different - but that I'd not the reality.
So, what are you suggesting? I mean, you sound like you're just going with the same old "let everyone in, worry about it later..." rhetoric that many on the Left like to spew...
I'm saying that the real immigration question is "how much money do you want to lose?"
immigrants are incredibly valuable, long term, to a country. You get someone who - even if they end up earning minimum wage - didn't cost you anything to birth, nurse, and raise, doesnt qualify for benefits but starts paying tax. Even just the savings on the cost of school itself probably makes an immigrant worth it monetarily.
Not only that but the marginal cost it does take, that would eat into those "profits", is then paid for by the fees an immigrant pays to emigrate.
That's why the only check is a fairly low income checkmark, so that the process remains profitable.
you must 100% be aligned with the values of your new country.
Uh... no.
So what then? You go to a new country as a hardcore Muslim, and are allowed to treat women like shit? Is that fair to the citizens of that country? I mean, I remember that story in the US about that man who "honor killed' his daughters, is that okay?
Woah, is it only 100% or 0% in your mind?