Hacker News Reader

> It's a trend that is growing all over Europe

The current system permitting freedom of movement across the continent while devolving immigration policy entirely to members creates a fundamental tension the EU needs to resolve. Because otherwise, Berlin can basically dictate EU immigration single handedly, which is bound to generate backlash even if they run a perfect programme.

Is this Berlin that decides anything and rolls it out contintent-wide with us in the room right now?

Berlin is basically forcing the EU's hand regarding the Gaza war, so, yes?

How is that related to immigration?

> Berlin can basically dictate EU immigration single handedly

That's what I was responding to.

Note the UK left the EU and accepted more immigrants than before. We didn't force them. Hungary and Poland never accepted Syrian immigrants either and they weren't forced to accept them iirc.

Only in the same sense that Hungary was dictating Russia and Ukraine policy.

Was wondering how long this thread could go before someone made it about the omnicause.

I believe the point was more that Germany can accept lots of immigrants being a large country, and freedom of movement will allow them inside all countries, which can lead to backlash.

And that point is wrong. An immigrant with a legal residence in Germany but no permanent residence permit can't just pack up and go live elsewhere.

Yep, someone points it to GP down below. One needs to apply for immigration again in the next country if they want to travel for more than a vacation.

No, that's not how it works, not unless they naturalise.

Spain is legalizing 500k immigrants: https://www.nbcnews.com/world/spain/spain-legalizing-half-mi...

Not quite Berlin, but same effect: nearly indiscriminate influx of poorly vetted immigrants that can soon travel all around Europe.

So yes, it's with us in the room, just not right now, but very soon.

Immigration is not devolved. The whole point of Schengen is the opposite of devolution of immigration.

You are confusing immigration with naturalization. Only if Berlin starts handing out German passports do they dictate EU immigration single-handedly.

> Only if Berlin starts handing out German passports do they dictate EU immigration single-handedly

Fair enough and great point.

It’s incredibly hard to naturalize in Switzerland. Less so in Germany. (Though still much harder than in America, at least based on my American friends who naturalized there and this Swiss of Indian and Germanic origin who naturalized in America.) It’s fair for those countries to want to maintain those differences.

> It’s incredibly hard to naturalize in Switzerland. Less so in Germany

Is it? Asking out of curiosity, from a cursory look both countries require self-sufficiency, language (in fact Switzerland looks a little easier on this), no criminal background, an integration test to be taken (and both seem easy) and time in the country.

Only major difference seems to me is Germany takes 5 years in paper (more like 6-7 in reality with bureaucracy) and Switzerland takes 10 years in paper.

Switzerland want less than B1? I find B1 barely can have a normal conversation.

B1 speaking, A2 writing if my token predictor is correct. :) -- which is a little less than Germany (B1 both)

In Switzerland they are voting on naturalisation... which means you are at the whim of people living in the same place. If you don't fit in you'll have a hard time, if they don't like you for whatever reason etc, wrong hair colour, you name it. In Germany it's an administrative act with clear demands.

Citizens voting on naturalization was abolished by federal court decision since 2008.

You can still be voted on by the city council though, but they are required to provide a reason and „wrong hair color“ will not pass legal challenge.

We are both correct in a way. Local authorities can still decide applications. It's no longer a secret ballot but naturalisation commissions, local councils, municipal parliaments, or assemblies.

Some decisions still make headlines though because the reasons are rather weird sometimes.

Some countries print them out very liberally though. Sweden did not require financial self-sufficiency or language ability until like 2 weeks ago. I raised this point back in like 2015 and was promptly called a racist. So these have been handed to people who have nothing to do with the country. Few other countries have done this too but less so. Now all their children etc. will have unfettered access to Switzerland.

Tbh I cannot see anything else but Swiss people at some point voting themselves out of this somehow.

Your comments do land on the xenophobic side though. E.g."Indians with German passports": You need to pass a naturalization and language tests before applying for citizenship. Until recently you couldn't even apply without living in the country for 6+ years - now reduced to 4+. So how do you or potential Swiss know they are Indians? The first thing that comes to mind is that you're assuming it by the way they look.

Eh, my PM has been in Switzerland for 8 years and it's still very obvious he's Indian from his accent, from his restaurant preferences and from his choice of holiday destinations... Just like I've been here 10 and it's still obvious I'm an Aussie. You can legally naturalize, but you will never truly be like a kid who grew up there in their formative years.

> The current system permitting freedom of movement across the continent while devolving immigration policy entirely to members creates a fundamental tension the EU needs to resolve. Because otherwise, Berlin can basically dictate EU immigration single handedly, which is bound to generate backlash even if they run a perfect programme.

You do realize German nationals (followed by French) are the top contingent in term of immigration to Swizerland.

(Only EU citizens benefit from freedom of movement to settle in Switzerland)

> You do realize German nationals (followed by French) are the top contingent in term of immigration to Swizerland

Yes. I’m also conceding to the SVP the observation that a good fraction of said nationals are recently naturalized.

If the SVP says it, it must be true :) What's their sources? I'm sure they could find a couple of anecdotes, doesn't make it significant.

> What's their sources?

Don’t know, don’t care. Mine are conversations in Zürich.

Assume it's true for the sake of argument. Do you think that would be an issue then?

To me it seems like EU countries are independently embarking on the Canada-policy of importing a whole bunch of South East Asians and Latin Americans. From Hungary to Ireland, you see the same trend.

Part of it is by economic necessity. For example finding nursing staff is very challenging and you have to compete with the US and Australia and other rich countries.

But part of it doesn't make much sense. We really don't need to import any kind of engineers from outside of Europe when we have about 2,500 EU universities pumping out graduates each year.

When a person relocates to a country where their labor is more productive, a large amount of new economic value is created. Much of that value is captured by the migrant through higher earnings, but a lot also accrues to the people in the community they join.

So an engineer joining a country that already has engineers still creates a ton of value in the destination country

And if they displace someone trying to join the engineering workforce say right out of school? What about housing?

Look up the "lump of labour fallacy". The jobs market is not a zero-sum thing.

The timescale that the "lump of labour fallacy" operates on, as in the aggregate effects on employement, doesn't necessarily work for most people (individually).

Therefore it isn't really a good metric at the scale required to alleviate the problems people are facing.

"Eventually it will work out." Isn't proffering a solution.

The aggregate effects on employment caused by immigration work on an identical timescale. If your point is, "people are terrible at blaming individual outcomes on aggregate statistical phenomena", then I agree with you.

There is no fixed demand for jobs, nor fixed supply of housing. Immigrant consumption creates a lot of jobs and immigrant labor creates a lot of housing

> For example finding nursing staff is very challenging

No. Finding staff that'll work for very low wages is very challenging. It's not really about bringing in essential skills, it's about driving down wages.

> It's not really about bringing in essential skills, it's about driving down wages

Sort of. You’re simply not going to have an agricultural sector with at Canadian and American wages without significantly higher food prices and protectionism. One day we may automate that. But that will still be more expensive for the foreseeable future.

Voters seem to be picking domestic production and low prices, with low wages being a side effect. (Business interests of course love those.)

Free borders policy is a special case of free market, so of course more competition is intended to drive the cattle prices down .

This is literally what anyone means when they can't or can't easily find anyone for anything which isn't evil or suicidal.

Nursing salaries have hit the ceiling of what is possible given the abysmal productivity in healthcare. People both complain nurses don't get paid enough, and that health insurance is too expensive.

> We really don't need to import any kind of engineers from outside

I was involved in a startup in the Netherlands. We tried to recruit Dutch people, all wanted safe 9-5 jobs where they would know what they would do in 1-2 years. A startup can not guarantee that.

We ended up with most engineers foreigners, many (but not all) that have studied there.

So I would say that it is also risk and opportunity related. Someone "from outside" will be willing to do more, will have to prove himself, will take more risk. A "local" will have family support, wealth, a network, might want and value stability.

I don't have an opinion about how things "should be", I am just sharing how I saw them (myself an immigrant, multiple times)

I guess the question for society is: do we want businesses who cannot pay domestic workers a fair wage to exist in our country? Or do we want them to exist elsewhere and we import those products?

To society a startup with a 99%% chance of failing to IPO is no different from a sweatshop which also wants skilled but cheap labor.

The problem with the latter is then you have no control over how the clothes/software are made. This is the problem the EU is now encountering - all the best software is made by US companies, but it's now tainted by sovereign risk.

The solution is obviously the American one. Make everyone so afraid of their job prospects that working for a startup isn't materially different in terms of job security.

I think this somewhat federation causes problems similar (by design!) to those that the Federal System within the United States encourages. The "finger pointing" allows for status quo to carry on as usual, while the overlapping & glacial judicial systems legislate glacially from their antiquated benches...

----

Hopefully we can all take inspiration from the living memories of balkanization – smaller groups, hopefully with shared interests and common backgrounds, ought to be in charge of themselves; and themselves, only.

> we can all take inspiration from the living memories of balkanization

Massive internal trade barriers and security so fragmented you’re at the whim of your larger neighbors?

It's a give/take. Even Israel & Spain have fenced borders (the latter on African continent)[i.e. it's not just USA "being racist"].

Every jurisdiction needs to limit immigration more (which EU's dispersed jurisdictions make impossible, by statute) before any one country can tackle any of their other lacks/disputes. The current EU setup is the inverse of USA's, where the feds technically regulate most immigration issues (instead of EU's individual memberstates having most power), but not all.

> Even Israel & Spain have fenced borders

Balkanisation refers to fences within one’s borders. It’s fragmentation that leads to less wealth, less security and eventually a loss of sovereignty to a powerful neighbor who notices.

I understand and encourage the "breaking up" aspect. Smaller, more home-rule societies.

Looking at it from the Slovene POV (which ultimately benefited from the dissolution of Yogoslavia, occurring within my/most lifetime), local industries/GDP benefitted greatly.

Slovenia joined EU rather fast (2003), so that might also have contributed to the prosperity. Joining EU is not exactly "breaking up", is more like "joining".

Currently, the rest of ex-Yugoslavia countries don't seem to do as well as Slovenia, and the main difference is date of joining the EU...

Slovenia has been doing way better than the rest of Yogoslavia for longer than it's been a country... it's one of the reasons they lead initial Days War. IIRC their GDP (regionally) was 6x the Yogoslavian average in 1990~

> And compared to other countries, I think Xenophobia is low

I would agree and also suggest that initiatives like this play a large role in doing so. While there's a lot of bullshit arguments coming from the "yes" camp they do make some reasonable points and it's important that we discuss them to show what the trade-offs are.

I cannot speak for all Swiss but knowing that it was a democratic decision to continue with some, high skilled, immigration makes it far easier to accept than if some government employee in Bern would've made that decision single handed.

We ve been hearing that the trend is growing for decades now but it's failed to achieve anything via popular support. If anything there is anti-immigrant fatigue and indifference. It did provide, however a convenient scarecrow that helped to hide under the rug the mountain of bad policies that are rendering european countries irrelevant economic backwaters.

Can you explain why you think xenophobia is low? My experience as a swed is that xenophobia and trying to avoid immigration often go hand in hand. You do not have a large Swiss right populist semi racist party like most other European countries have?

In my experience, Swiss don't like criminals, unemployed people and people showing openly their religion. They negatively associate certain nationalities with stereotypes (e.g. Albanians, Maroccans etc.). If you are a representative of these groups, yes, it will be a problem. Violence towards foreigners is, compared to other countries, does not exist. Also with other nationalities, it is very different. Some people don't like Germans (that's also historically of course). However, with Germans near the boder it is often not a problem because they are more similar (and know how Swiss behave). With people from Berlin, many Swiss have not much in common. My wife is visible not Swiss and she never encountered raciscm (quite the contrary, she gets more free products at local stores than me because people recognize her). She also likes to buy tomatoes only from Switzerland. It is all how you behave in my experience. To the SVP, it is quite a different between the party and representative that are in the government. They are considered moderate due to the political system in Switzerland.

The SVP is not considered "moderate". They are a far-right party. The fact that they are wide spread and gather a lot of votes does not make them "moderate".

Source: am Swiss

Well, they are "moderate" in that they are in the Bundesrat, unlike a real fringe party like EDU or FPS (or PdA on the left).

As an anecdote re Germans: A friend of mine did an Auslandssemester there and was surprised to see "No Germans" signs for some of the housing options. Always makes me chuckle as an example how "relative" xenophobia is.

How are the job prospects and housing prices? Switzerland is beautiful and I would gladly move there for six or so equivalent figures..

If you are non-EU, you will not get a work permit.

If you are EU or do get a work permit, you will not get housing.

The vote was for a reason…

You can get housing, you have to trade money for time and commute with the (frequent and reliable) public transportation.

Meanwhile the parlement and the anti+immigration far-right vote all the time to increase landlord rights and margins. Most of them are landlords, of course...

I mean, Kt. ZH also had the Wohnungsinitiative today, because not even Swiss people can find housing in ZH anymore.

Let’s be realistic and admit that landlords already prioritize someone with history of renting in the country and it’s pretty fair to say that new immigrants will struggle to get housing. Even if you come on a FAANG salary, you will not be able to buy your way in that easily.

> Even if you come on a FAANG salary, you will not be able to buy your way in that easily.

Americans at Google Zürich do it all the time.

Both of these are wrong.

Non-EU means it's harder to get a permit, especially without working experience, but it's not impossible either.

Housing is difficult in cities like Zurich but calling it impossible is stretching it, especially if one is fine with a longer commute.

They pay incredibly well, but their work culture (vacation, protections for parents etc) is atrocious. They're on par with Japan/South Korea.

You get bonus points for commuting across the German border and utilizing our cheap prices. Don't forget to get the value-added tax refunded!

Meat trafficking over the border is one of my hobbies.