https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/06/15/could-switzerl...
Despite the prosperity, many Swiss had mixed emotions about the guest workers, who came largely from Southern Europe. As the Swiss novelist Max Frisch observed, “We wanted workers, but we got people.”It’s a special kind of NIMBY, not necessarily xenophobia. More like a class thing, they want other rich people’s kids do the shitty jobs so they don’t have to have these poor people doing the jobs and hanging around.
It’s first “I don’t want illegal immigrants”, when the immigration is legal they start doing things like take back control(UK) or sustainability (Swiss).
What they should have done was unprotected heterosexual sex 20 years ago or robots now.
I find it annoying that they screw other stuff just because they don’t want to face the truth about their character.
It was terrible for girls born in China when they had their one child limit.
This is still very close for comfort, and SVP will re-propose it again and again and again as it and it's predecessors have done for decades.
It would be wise to have some pro-natality policies here and there, but look at China what happens if you go all "existential threat" on this issue. Biology is not engineering, things evolve differently than what one wants (there are other examples of strong natality policies fails).
The power of collective action via votes isn’t a bayesian system, its just like the sum of many binary vectors.
> And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is.
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
Posting guides explicitly state "That includes more than hacking and startups".I would say that this post definitly falls squarely into the "interesting new phenomenon" category since it's the first time a country has proposed a population cap (as far as i am aware).
But yes, probably an improved psychology (in terms of understanding yourself, trying to learn, be curious, etc), would fix a lot, still feels like a daunting task anywhere in the world.
It seems more the indigenous people of Europe and their cultures are being eradicated all over Europe after the vile and demonic, parasitic ruling class of the planet turns on Europeans once again after having previously destroyed and plundered the rest of the planet.
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.
They have among the lowest fertility rates on the planet and a huge over 50 population.
There's no way they can keep being wealthy and comfortable without younger immigrants.
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.
They don't give a damn if you have 13 children, they don't want brown people in Switzerland.
But EU citizens can basically live forever in CH even though technically they don’t have permanent residency.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-af...
And Switzerland just voted no to a hard population cap, in a direct democratic vote.
Unprotected heterosexual sex and births were decoupled 55 years ago. Almost as tenuous is the link between births and well raised children who can and will provide the labor that is wanted.
#NotSorryForFlaming
If you are EU or do get a work permit, you will not get housing.
The vote was for a reason…
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!
They don’t want the southern Europeans around. That’s textbook xenophobia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect
The "locals don't want to do those jobs" comptemptuous rethoric of the left has always been false, locals don't want to clean the sewers for the minimal wage, but will do it for a proper salary. My grandfather was a cook in Paris, he was making a decent wage and could buy a summer house back then.
Now the restaurant where he used to work has a Sri Lankan who works for half the minimum wage (half of his hours are undeclared) and lives in a slum to save on housing costs.
Yeah, locals don't want to live like slaves, so what? Is that the end state that we must reach through mass immigration?
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)
55% no is… ok? Typical for such votes?
But of course, the SVP have been launching the same initiative since the 70s, they are unlikely to stop now.
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.
----
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.
You are confusing immigration with naturalization. Only if Berlin starts handing out German passports do they dictate EU immigration single-handedly.
Source: am Swiss
I wont call this xenophobia. Its just rich people annoyed by the poor hanging around outside the working hours.
Turn the brain on from time to time!
PS. I am German.
Or, what I actually prefer is face who you are and say I don’t want those people who are a generation or two behind in wealth? Why the gymnastics? As if there are people pf your kind who would have done these jobs but they are just sitting around or doing rocket science because the pay is %15 lower than what they desire.
Just ridiculous.
apologies, but those of us in the Left agree more with the second part of your sentence than the Left. Are you mixing Leftists and Liberals, perchance?
How many people born in CH never become Swiss? Because for the US, that number is ~0%.
And before you say: "well the US have different rules", well, ok, but then don't compare us to the US on the other number either, compare us to other EU countries with similar types of rules but different implementations.
CH has stricter naturalization laws than many EU countries and CH has mandatory military service which discourages many males from naturalizing, even those born in the country.
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...
Yes. I’m also conceding to the SVP the observation that a good fraction of said nationals are recently naturalized.
Very typical, and even higher than usual.
The Swiss have votations all the time. They also can vote by mail. Those who didn't vote had no opinion, or no strong opinion, on the matter.
Also, cities who should suffer the most of overcrowding by immigrants voted against, as well as cantons situated at the border, while the backcountry who never see any immigrant voted in favor.
A 55% win with 58% turnout despite how this vote was front and center of media discourse is very worrisome as this shows how disengaged the other 42% are.
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)
So an engineer joining a country that already has engineers still creates a ton of value in the destination country
False economy. More engineers, particularly diversely trained ones, are more likely to create self-reinforcing clusters. Nobody complains Silicon Valley has too many engineers (other than during a hiring off cycle) because in general, more engineers means more wealth and opportunities for each engineer.
Massive internal trade barriers and security so fragmented you’re at the whim of your larger neighbors?
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.
Western Europe has been a powder keg for at least three millennia. The only thing keeping a cap on it recently was American hegemony. (EDIT: to be clear, American hegemony is waning. The powder keg is uncapped, and we’re one of the parties throwing in matches.)
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.
About one third. That would bring the fraction of naturalised foreign-born citizens in line with the US (which is also a kind-of-hard place to get citizenship, that's true).
> CH has mandatory military service which discourages many males from naturalizing
That doesn't make it difficult, it makes it undesirable and suggests that many people could get it but choose not to.
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.
If the marketing were less xenophobic and the cap were derived from some scientific basis, I think I could be persuaded to vote for it. Particularly since it is not a vote for Chexit, but a democratic vote to confront the EU. (Britain triggered Article 50. Nothing in this referendum directs Berne to do that.)
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.)
Swiss nationality is not linked to your birth country, it is linked to lineage. There are second, third, (fourth, fifth, sixth?) generation immigrants in Switzerland that are not Swiss. Conversly, there are Swiss nationals that have never set foot in Switzerland.
Tbh I cannot see anything else but Swiss people at some point voting themselves out of this somehow.
I despise such openly xenophobic posts.
And Indian immigration tends to be the most educated and wealthy. It's also the wealthiest ethnic group in the US. By far.
In any case, leaving Schengen for Switzerland would be de facto equivalent to Brexit, an economic disaster.
Switzerland thrives by attracting highly qualified professionals for it's service and manufacturing industries and yes, also at the lower end where Swiss nationals aren't lining up to be plumbers, couriers or cleaning staff.
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.
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.
And it takes more than a decade to have a chance at trying to get naturalized in Switzerland - a process that takes more than a year and thousands of CHF.
And naturalized immigrants have been shown to be ready to "pull the ladder behind them", even in countries where it is easier to get it (see the many interviews of Turks voting AfD in Germany or Indians voting Conservative in the UK).
Don’t know, don’t care. Mine are conversations in Zürich.
Citizens with immigration background have been in the country for 10+ years, because 10 is the minimum for getting citizenship, at which point their voting patterns are more likely to be influenced by other factors and not their immigrant background.
Plus, it’s a bit of a phenomenon that many citizens with immigrant background’s tend to vote for stricter immigration policies.
In what way? It is a vote to adopt a policy that is in breach of your international treaty obligations. Unilaterally breaching your obligations is not a grounds for discussion or compromise, it is simply an exit from them, benefits included.
Suppose you're not getting on with your roommate. You could talk to them and try to resolve the problems, or you could default on your lease and receive an eviction notice from the landlord. You are opting for the latter. That is not "confronting" anything, it is a done deal. It is a choice you are allowed to make, to be clear, just as the Brits did, but let's not pretend it's something it isn't.
The initiative text literally directed the Bundesrat to withdraw from the bilaterals 2 years after exceeding 10m if they couldn't be renegotiated.
Civilisations that learn to balance this conflict between growth and limited resources thrive. Those that cap their growth can do fine, but they obviously won’t be as rich, powerful or influential as those that manage it.
I know this is tongue in cheek. But one of the hallmarks of a nation of immigrants is the enforced tolerance of speaking multiple national languages. Lots of people who only speak on throws off that balance.
Oh, to be clear, yes.
What's this Swiss language you speak of? I never heard of it. You must mean Romansh but that's only 0.5% of the population or so. You'd have to kick out 95.5% of the Swiss population too then?
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 visited few times and I like the country but I don't expect them to accept or cater to me.
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.
> 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.
It was a vote to renegotiate them under threat of disavowing them. That’s fine.
> You could talk to them and try to resolve the problems, or you could default on your lease and receive an eviction notice from the landlord
It’s totally fair, during those talks, to make clear that if you can’t reach an agreement on the roommate not doing their dishes, you’re prepared to move out. (That doesn’t commit you to moving out if they refuse to budge.)
Sure. This is two years down the road. And it is not Article 50. It would cause a shitshow. But that shitshow could be averted and is less comprehensive than directing an EU exit.
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.
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.
> If these guys are such GDP rocket fuel and a solution, they can make their own country the best in the world.
Not every country in the world gives the same opportunities, it's only natural many motivated individuals may try their chances elsewhere, I see nothing wrong with it.
I'm an European and I have many grandparents and their relatives who emigrated to Argentina, US, Canada a century or so ago.
My parents left communist Poland for Italy in the 70s.
Many of my friends left Italy and now reside in the UK, Netherlands, Switzerland, Australia and some in the US too.
Overly xenophobic anti immigration stances don't resonate with me at all.
Immigration is a net benefit for humanity, it has had a huge impact on distributing human capital where it could best express it's talents.
Like everything it has its cons and regulations are needed. But none of those should be rooted on open racism.
The vote did commit you to amending your federal constitution with a population cap, period.
> If the 10-million threshold is exceeded, Switzerland would have to terminate these agreements, including the one with the EU on the free movement of persons after two years. This would also render the other agreements under Bilateral Agreements I null and void. Switzerland’s participation in the EU’s Schengen and Dublin agreements would also be called into question, thereby jeopardising close cooperation in the areas of security and asylum.
There is no room for negotiation in it. The government page itself spells out the hardline consequences.
But I suppose that's how these votes have to be marketed, isn't it? The Brits were under the delusion that they'd get to have their cake and eat it too, that they could keep any benefits of being in the EU even as they exited it. I wonder how many Swiss were aware they were voting to end their own freedom of movement, that blocking EU immigration would mean they would no longer be able to move elsewhere in the EU themselves. Which, again, is valid if that's the intention, but I suspect a lot of voters like yourself rather believed they were only voting to end freedom of movement for brown foreigners, or voting to negotiate special privileges, when in actuality it was literally a vote to exit treaties.
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...
There is always room for negotiation. Bilaterals is a treaty, not a diktat. And again, 2 years provides time for another referendum.
> wonder how many Swiss were aware they were voting to end their own freedom of movement, that blocking EU immigration would mean they would no longer be able to move elsewhere in the EU themselves
Everyone did. The question was how the Guillotine clauses would be executed. Which, truly, nobody knows.
Unless you live under a rock it's not Crazy Horse or Geronimo sitting in the white house, but a descendant of immigrants.
The "diktat" is the thing you just voted on which says "we will not negotiate". There is always room for negotiation until you vote for a law that says "no negotiations, we are now legally mandated to do X".
> 2 years provides time for another referendum.
Voting for a no-negotiations amendment to your constitution as a negotiation tactic with the idea that you will later pass another constitutional amendment in a small window of time to revoke it is some kind of 4D checkers strategising that I suppose I am not enlightened enough to grasp.

Members of the left-wing Social Democratic Party on Sunday celebrated early projections that showed Swiss voters have said "no" to the initiative to cap the population at ten million. Keystone / Anthony Anex
Generated with artificial intelligence.
This content was published on June 14, 2026 - 18:10
8 minutes

Reporter specialised in Swiss foreign affairs, with a side hustle as a sub-editor in the English Department. Previously my focus was on disinformation and fact-checks, which I still produce occasionally.

I am a climate and science/technology reporter. I am interested in the effects of climate change on everyday life and scientific solutions. Born in London, I am a dual citizen of Switzerland and the UK. After studying modern languages and translation, I trained as a journalist and joined swissinfo.ch in 2006. My working languages are English, German, French and Spanish.
Español
Suiza rechaza establecer un tope a su población
Português
Suíços rejeitam limitar a população a dez milhões
日本語
スイス有権者、人口1000万人制限案を否決
العربية
الناخبون يرفضون مبادرة شعبية للحد من الهجرة
中文
设定1000万人口上限?瑞士人说“不”
Русский
Швейцарцы отказались ограничить население страны 10 млн человек
Final results published by research institute gfs.bern indicate voters have rejected the “No to ten million” immigration initiative by a 54.8% majority, compared to 45.2% who approved it. Meanwhile, a legislative reform designed to make civilian service less attractive passed with 52.5% of the vote.
Turnout was 58%, which is high compared to previous votes.
French-speaking Switzerland voted for a decisive rejection of the population cap initiative, said Lukas Golder, an analyst at gfs.bern. In canton Neuchatel, 67.3% of voters said “no” to the initiative, while the figure was 65.4% in Geneva and 64.5% in Vaud. That said, the rejection was most resounding in German-speaking Basel-City, with 73.5%. By contrast, the small rural canton of Appenzell Inner Rhodes in northeastern Switzerland voted “yes” by a 65.9% majority.
More

Swiss Politics
This content was published on Jun 14, 2026 “No to ten million” immigration initiative is also being scrutinized internationally. Revision of the law aims to tighten access to civilian service. You can find all the results here.
Read more: June 14 votes: results from across Switzerland
“The countryside has very clearly said ‘yes’, but the cities tipped the balance,” People’s Party president Marcel Dettling told Swiss public radio SRF. Sunday’s result aside, he said the country’s problems would persist. “I urge those who are celebrating today to tackle these problems,” he said.
The immigration initiative, which dominated public debate during the campaign, called for Switzerland to limit its population to ten million in response to growing pressure on the nation’s infrastructure. The People’s Party claimed that overcrowded trains, congested roads and a tight housing market could all be attributed to “uncontrolled” immigration.
The population currently sits at 9.1 million, having grown by 23% since the agreement on free movement with the European Union came into force in 2002. Under the initiative, Switzerland would have been forced to adopt certain measures if the population reached 9.5 million before 2050. This would have ultimately included ending free movement with the EU, the government had argued during campaigning – although the People’s Party had countered this was to be a last resort.
>>Learn more about the “No to ten million” immigration initiative.
More

Swiss Politics
This content was published on Apr 14, 2026 On June 14, the Swiss will vote on a right-wing initiative aiming to cap immigration.
Read more: ‘No to ten million’ vote – should Switzerland cap its population?
On Sunday, Justice Minister Beat Jans welcomed the outcome, telling the media: “With its decision, the public has sent a message of stability, openness and reliability.”
Cédric Wermuth, co-president of the left-wing Social Democratic Party, told Swiss public radio SRF a majority of the Swiss population had had enough of the People’s Party’s “scapegoat politics”. He also attributed voters’ rejection of the population cap to a wish to safeguard relations with the EU, Switzerland’s largest trading partner and a primary source of skilled labour thanks to free movement.
The president of Swiss business federation economiesuisse, Monika Rühl, echoed Wermuth, calling Sunday’s result a significant outcome for Swiss-EU relations and for businesses that rely on EU workers.
In a sign that the vote was being closely watched outside the country, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen tweeted: “The Swiss people have spoken. The EU and Switzerland share deep ties and a strong partnership. We will continue working together to modernise and deepen our cooperation”.
Centre Party president Matthias Bregy said the vote had opened a debate on how to manage population growth, which in Switzerland has outpaced that of neighbouring countries. “Growth is a real problem,” he told Swiss public radio RTS. “People who live in cities or who use the train know this all too well.” The People’s Party’s proposed solutions under the population cap initiative, however, were flawed, he said.
More

Swiss Politics
This content was published on May 6, 2026 Immigration has boosted Switzerland’s economy but repeatedly challenged its political system. Yet the arguments in this debate have barely changed over the decades.
Read more: Twenty initiatives in 60 years: Switzerland’s relentless immigration debate
The “No to ten million” proposal is the latest in a line of popular initiatives put forth by the People’s Party under the country’s direct democracy system to restrict immigration. In 2014, voters narrowly backed its “mass immigration” initiative, but the party argues it was not properly implemented.
On Sunday, Swiss voters also backed tighter rules on civilian service, with 53% approving a legal reform that makes it harder to opt out of military service. The changes to the Federal Civilian Service ActExternal link, which had been challenged by referendum, aim to curb the number wanting to do civilian – rather than military – service.
The proposal was rejected by most of the 26 cantons, with the exceptions of voters in cantons Vaud, Geneva, Neuchâtel and Jura in western Switzerland and Zurich.
The new rules introduce stricter conditions for those wanting to do civilian service, including a minimum of 150 service days, reduced flexibility, and mandatory refresher courses. The goal is to cut annual admissions from around 7,200 to 4,000 and reinforce army staffing at a time of heightened geopolitical tensions, particularly since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
“In smaller, more conservative cantons, the vote result is very clear,” said Golder of gfs.bern, calling the outcome a sign that voters want to strengthen the army “in difficult times”.
Supporters argued civilian service had become too attractive and strayed from its original purpose as an alternative for conscientious objectors.
“We are in a particular context with a lot of insecurity. We need to refocus our efforts to ensure this security,” said Swiss People’s Party lawmaker Nicolas Kolly. “Military service is compulsory – these are necessary obligations for the country.”
Sunday’s vote had been triggered by a referendum under the banner “Save Civilian Service”, led mainly by the left-wing Social Democratic Party, the Greens and the Protestant Party.
>>Read more about the referendum against the civilian service reform.
More

Swiss Politics
This content was published on Apr 20, 2026 The Swiss parliament wants to make it more difficult to switch from military to civilian service. The political left is against the reform. Voters will decide on June 14.
Read more: Swiss voters to decide on stricter rules for conscientious objection
Opponents had warned the reform would worsen staff shortages in sectors such as healthcare, education and agriculture, and would do little to boost the army itself.
Despite the setback, backers of the referendum say civilian service remains widely valued. The Young Greens pointed to the close result as evidence of broad public support, and campaigners signalled they may resist further restrictions.
“Civil service remains an institution recognised and valued by the Swiss population, particularly because it contributes to the country’s security,” said Sheldon Masseraz, co-chair of the Young Greens.
Clarence Chollet, a Green Party member and head of the Swiss Federation for Civil Service, warned that the broader goal on the right is to dismantle the system. “This includes reintroducing the conscience test and merging it with civil protection – steps that concern us far more,” she said.
The issue drew limited attention during the campaign, overshadowed by the “No to ten million” immigration initiative. According to the Swiss Political Yearbook, only 2% of media coverage focused on civilian service.
Swiss citizens go to the polls up to four times a year, but not everyone living in Switzerland can vote on June 14. Only Swiss citizens over the age of 18 and not under guardianship are eligible to vote on national issues.
Voters can have their say either by postal ballot or in person at the ballot box. Those living abroad must register. A total of around 5.6 million people can vote – just under two-thirds of the country’s population of around nine million.
People living in Switzerland who do not have Swiss nationality cannot vote, despite making up about a quarter of the population.
Around half of eligible voters usually cast ballots. Over the past ten years, the annual average voter turnout has been between 41% and 57%, according to the Federal Statistical Office. In practice, this means it takes less than 1.5 million votes to win.
Edited by Samuel Jaberg
Read more