How dare they not vote in favor of opening their borders to just anyone who wants to waltz on in!
Courtesy of the Telegraph:
The anti-immigration Swiss People’s Party (SVP) won the biggest share of the vote in Sunday’s national parliamentary election, keeping pressure on Bern to introduce quotas on people moving from the European Union.
For some reason I doubt we’re going to see an article from Jeffrey Tucker and others about how “racist” and “xenophobic” the Swiss (or Japan or New Zealand) are for not wanting to throw their borders open to anyone without first determining whether or not they’re going to be a detriment or positive addition to the country and its culture. Especially in a democracy like Switzerland, where these people will actually get a chance to vote and directly determine who gets citizenship in their respective communities.
It’s like what I’ve said before. This is not just about freedom of movement. When you have a democracy, or even a republic, immigrants have the potential to either assimilate into the culture or reject it and maintain their own separate identity. As the Balkans have shown, this presents a little bit of a problem. Multiculturalism either leads to countries breaking apart to form their own or they’re held together through brutality and violence.
When a large number of people enter your country with diametrically opposed beliefs on everything, and then vote to use the violence of the state to effect those beliefs on others, it’s an invasion, pure and simple.
Bionic Mosquito wrote a great article a while back on why the Swiss immigration model is the most sensible and closest to libertarianism, and I happen to agree. The U.S. Constitution notwithstanding, this might be an ideal change if there is a Constitutional Convention calling for amendments.
In today’s statist world, the closest model in an advanced-economy of localization and decentralization is Switzerland. The Swiss do not consider that any and all comers will be residents or citizens. It is not a national question but a local question. And it can take years or decades before your neighbors decide you are qualified.
Who has the right to decide who lives there – the ones who already live there or the ones who would like to? Is it a property right or a positive right? The Swiss have answered this question properly – likely just as it would be answered in many places. No one has the right to move in; they must be invited.
I will add other examples: homeowners associations, apartments, condominiums, hotels, amusement parks, multi-tenant office buildings, companies of all sorts. Each of these – in areas where the government has not established “forced integration,” to use Hoppe’s perfectly formed term – has rules and guidelines for those who would like to enter.
They do not allow any and all comers with any and all behavior. They do not allow uninvited visitors free use of the cafeteria, bathrooms, telephone and internet. They do not allow trespass-occupation of temporarily unused conference rooms or hotel rooms. They do not allow tents in common areas known as hallways or lobbies.
In each of these examples, the owners control access to their property. This is what a libertarian, free-market immigration policy would look like. And in a state-controlled world, even here it exists.
The Swiss seem to get this better than others in Europe.