The case for immigration; one country decides
Swiss voters speak
Gordon L. Weil
Mostly overlooked, a Swiss referendum this
week made a major statement on immigration that will echo in the U.S. and
Europe.
The vote in Switzerland, a direct democracy where citizens regularly
hold popular votes to decide public policy, is proof that immigration won’t go
away as an issue, at least in North America and Europe.
While President Trump has largely made good on his promise
to close the door to new arrivals, his policy won’t be the last word. The Swiss put the question starkly.
Voters were asked to decide if the small country should
place a cap on its population. As the
ceiling neared, the government would have to limit immigration, even preventing
divided families from re-uniting. It
might have to forego the benefits of access to the EU market if it blocked
employment for workers from elsewhere in Europe.
The Swiss vote was a reminder of a key element of the
British decision to quit the EU. One of
the prime causes of Brexit was the increase in foreign workers. The European
arrivals would take jobs from Brits, it was claimed, and, after they settled,
they would reshape the country’s culture, shedding Merrie Olde England and the
moribund British Empire.
The pro-Brexit voters believed that their country’s
greatness would enable it to profit from going it alone. The loss of Europeans both in the labor force
and in the consumer marketplace did not weigh heavily enough to influence the
outcome. While the British economy did
not collapse as a result, its growth slowed.
In Switzerland, the issue was placed before the voters by
the largest political party, a right-leaning organization that opposes
immigration. It made several economic
arguments that were meant to show that new arrivals would place excessive
strain on the country.
It argued that there would not be enough housing to handle
additions to the population. Rural areas
would be increasingly “paved over” to accommodate urbanization. The schools would be stretched and the
quality of education would decline. And
there would not be enough support personnel, like doctors, to handle the
increase.
These comments assumed that Switzerland could not grow to
accept a continual increase in its population.
The proponents did not consider that contributions, professional and
financial, that immigrants could make would allow the national economy to grow. Their position amounted to saying that the
country could not prosper if it had a larger population.
The government expressed its opinion, opposing the initiative
because it would harm the national economy. It argued that national prosperity
would suffer if the country lacked enough labor to maintain and increase
production. Health care and construction,
both dependent on foreign workers, would suffer.
The Swiss economy depends on links with other economies,
notably the EU. Ending immigration could
isolate the country, potentially ending several international agreements. The analysis also showed that immigrants
contribute more to the economy than the demands placed by them on social
welfare programs.
This debate has direct parallels with politics in Britain
and the United States. In Switzerland,
under direct democracy, the people themselves got to decide, not politicians
seeking to create and exploit fears.
The cap was opposed 55% to 45%. The electoral defeat came because the large
urban areas strongly opposed the proposal to limit population. The Swiss
Confederation is divided into state-like “cantons,” and cantons like Zurich and
Geneva favored immigration. Small, rural
cantons opposed. It was the kind of
rural-urban, conservative-moderate split seen in American politics.
The result may be explained by more than economic
issues. Proponents also cited the
increase in the number of Muslims, making discrimination a factor.
The Swiss referendum reflected a debate about the nature of
the world’s economies. Nations may be so
interconnected that the movement of workers is not a diabolical threat, as some
claim, but an inevitable effect of the new economic links that extend well
beyond national borders.
Nor is immigration the result of a globalization plot,
designed to destroy national economies and turn power over to hidden economic
rulers. Supply lines that cross borders
and workers whose skills offer value beyond their home countries are organic
developments, not the result of sinister schemes.
The Swiss government opinion pointed out that approving the
proposal would damage the country’s reputation, which is partly based on its
creation and operation of the International Red Cross. By capping its population, “Switzerland would
isolate itself and lose its credibility,” it said.
This is the message of the Swiss referendum for the U.S., as
it pursues an America First policy. The Swiss think as highly of themselves as
do Americans. Just as the U.S. serves as
a constitutional and economic model, Switzerland serves as a humanitarian and
democratic model.
Preserving national “credibility” and its thriving economy should
be as important to the U.S. as it is to Switzerland.
