Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by really, Feb 10, 2014.
I am just quoting you YMVWX
Thanks for even more evidence it is just another silly troll, instead of even trying to discuss the topic.
I don't get this. What's going on? Are there, or are there not, immigration restrictions between Canada, the US, and Mexico?
Well someone posted this
I think the EU allows a few more than that.
There's surely more than 9,000 Mexicans in the US. I've heard there's quite a number of illegal immigrants from Mexico.
I'm not sure about Canadians, though. There may well be no, or little, de facto restriction on Canadian immigration.
It does seem to be a bit on the low side to me but you have to assume that Formaldehyde is correct about the numbers.
Clinton signed a law making hundreds of thousands of Mexican illegal immigrants into citizens. That's a good thing, these are the folks who do the real work instead of pushing papers. Lots of politicians smiling, patting each other on the back and drinking champagne and counting the new voters on the left. Problem with the law that was passed was that there were murderers, rapists, criminals of every sort included and nobody thought to exclude them. So, we pay the price of incarceration or worse, their criminal activities on the streets. Thank you Bill Clinton.
Not legally under NAFTA.
This stuff isn't difficult. It's all in the article I posted. Of course, you probably aren't going to be able to figure it out if you just read the trolls.
I'll give that a clear "jein". The big influx of germans in the last few years certainly played a role (when EU-13 immigrants were mentioned it was mostly germans as french and italians immigrate to a much smaller degree), but what propably swayed many was the argument that now that you can see what unrestricted immigration from the EU-13 is like you could imagine what it will be soon when Bulgaria/Romania become unrestricted as well. Or something like that.
Btw what's funny is that although the germans are currently by far the biggest groups among new arrivals, they're also by far the biggest groups of foreigners who leave the country again...but of course that's not being mentioned in the campaign
Yeah, we're a bit funny like that :/ I guess it has to do with the whole "keine fremden hüte grüssen" (greet no foreign hats) thingy that's deeply ingrained into swiss psyche.
yeah, all 3 of them
Switzerland has more immigrants from the EU per year ...
I live where Switzerland bumps into both France and Germany. House prices here have always been relatively high but with very low price inflation - roughly 1% per year. In the last 5 years, there has been a massive increase in costs of both rental and purchase prices. The locals blame the influx of the near neighbours for the increase. Still, this Kanton recorded one of the biggest no votes on the issue (61% against).
In the past year, several of my Swiss friends have moved across the border into France where housing is roughly half the price of inner city Swiss prices - they commute each day back into Switzerland. They are now concerned about a lengthy border crossing ritual should the EU retaliate in some way. They are not expecting to be thrown out.
why is it that everybody who posts from Switzerland seems to come from the area of Basel?
In my case, it's because it's the centre of the European life science industries. That's why I came here - I stay because it's a great place to live.
So much for Swiss neutrality.
Defying Brussels has its consequences when a nation willingly enters into a certain organization.
How many Cantonese do the Cantons hold?
Switzerland is not a member. That says it all about the EU.
It doesn't say anything about the EU. They had a deal, now they Switzerland might break that deal and EU warns that that will have consequences.
What does this have to do with neutrality?
Brussels has already told Switzerland that the 'bilateral way' is at an end and demanding automatic integration of EU law before this vote. Sometimes it felt as if Brussels wanted this initiative to succeed so that Switzerland will have to cancel the agreement instead of the other way around.
Why is everybody talking about 'breaking' a deal? Since when are agreements made for eternity. It's like saying that an employee who resigns is breaking a deal (or an employer who fires an employee for that matter).
Switzerland will have to negotiate new terms with the EU (unlikely) or else formally cancel the treaties within the next 3 years. That's not 'breaking' a deal.
Conflict of a sort will be brought to the Swiss for the lack of capitulation.
Good. I can understand how when it was a community of 6 or 9 members with limited scope it wasn't that difficult to be flexible with the neighbours. Now as a union of 28 it is hard enough to get agreement within the union never mind trying to negotiate with those without. I don't see why Switzerland should be any different to say Norway (or a UK outside the EU but within the EEA )
The expectation was that it would continue indefinitely and the EU was apparently happy with the situation and a bit upset it might end.
I'm sorry, you've totally lost me there
Oh, I totally understand the position of the EU. But the EU also should understand the position of Switzerland where automatic implementation of EU law was not well received especially since the people voted against membership even in a EU 'light'.
Well no, the expection of the EU was that Switzerland would eventually join, and they were far from happy with the current situation (as stated in my previous post)
Separate names with a comma.