Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by really, Feb 10, 2014.
And... when will the world leave Switzerland a nuclear wasteland?
Switzerland is quite capable of doing that to itself.
It's currently trying to work out how to replace all of the nuclear power plants it has promised to do away with.
To be honest, I fail to see how the outcome of this vote pitches Switzerland in any way more vs. the world than other countries. Immigration restrictions are the norm, nothing special. If you were holding a similiar vote today in Germany, France or even the Netherlands, chances are high that similar results would be produced. And that may even be a good thing.
Yes. They must keep the freeloading Germans under strict control.
Except for hysterics, I'm still waiting for an actual argument about why it's evil for a nation (any nation) to decide it does want to control its influx of foreigners.
You mean like the ones which have been quite deliberately not doing so with member countries for over a decade in order to better establish a true union of countries?
It seems the real "hysterics" here are the usual attempts to rationalize and defend the indefensible while trying to distance themselves from the xenophobes who feel the same way.
Still waiting for an actual argument.
I have already pointed it above, mouth-foaming ramblings don't count. Ranting doesn't make truth.
The only "mouth-foaming ramblings" in this thread have been the same lack of acceptable reasons for the EU not to pursue this obviously worthy goal.
But go right ahead. Try to rationalize it.
What makes immigration restrictions 'indefensible', as opposed to merely something you don't agree with?
Still absolutely no argument beside the usual "I'm high on my horse" posturing.
Then I'm sure you will have no difficulty at all quoting where I stated that in those terms. Or would you prefer to discuss what I actually wrote?
Did I miss your response with a cogent argument why the EU shouldn't try to enforce their clearly stated and adopted policy, and which has been in place for well over a decade now?
It appears you are speaking of immigration restrictions being indefensible here:
If not immigration restrictions in general, what is it exactly that you are saying is indefensible?
Well, first, we're talking about Switzerland, which (again) isn't in the EU, and as such has no obligation to follow the free-travel regulations of the EU - you keep repeating you know this, but you keep bringing back EU regulation in a Switzerland legislation.
Second, you still haven't given any actual argument about why it's evil for a nation to restrict the flux of foreigners, despite being repeatedly asking to do so, instead relying on the same empty choleric drama and attempt at derailing the question.
Guess it proves you don't HAVE a point.
The mighty eu will crush Switzerland like a papercup! Or have someone do it for the eu.
Don't worry anti-EU comrade, for this this May we shall teach them a lesson
I was referring to the attempts to change the EU policy of free movement, not "immigration restrictions in general".
Did you even bother to read my posts before completely misrepresenting them "again"?
No, it's quite clear you haven't read and understood them at all.
And I'm still waiting for you to even try to rationalize your own position in regard to the EU.
Still absolutely nothing to answer the original question :
No. I can't think of any argument against a nation controlling immigration.
Always assuming, of course, that a nation does have a legitimate claim to sovereignty over a particular geographical location. But that's a different argument entirely.
So, still no cogent reason why the EU shouldn't act like a civilized collection of modern countries by encouraging what should be an obvious policy to do so? I thought so.
Eh? How would the US react if the EU decided that the US should allow unrestricted immigration?
Separate names with a comma.