The Swiss voice in the world since 1935

Should the Swiss population be capped at 10 million?

Hosted by:

I manage a multilingual team responsible for covering the Swiss Abroad, providing them with the information they need to participate in political life in Switzerland. After studying political science in Neuchâtel and Bern, I started out in multimedia journalism at SwissTXT and RTS. Since 2008, I've been working at SWI swissinfo.ch, where I've held various journalistic and management positions.

There are more than nine million people living in Switzerland. The Through a people’s initiative, the Swiss People’s Party wants to cap the Swiss population to not more than 10 million residents until 2050.

More

How many people do you think Switzerland can realistically host? What alternatives to immigration do you envisage to ensure there are enough skilled workers? And do you see Swiss population growth as an opportunity or a threat?

Join the conversation!

Contributions must adhere to our guidelines. If you have questions or wish to suggest other ideas for debates, please, get in touch!
J
jepyerly@websud.ch
The following contribution has been automatically translated from FR.

Unfortunately, we cannot simply move our borders. We must strike a balance between available space and infrastructure for transport, food, drinking water and services, healthcare facilities, education, energy supply and so on. The price of building land is skyrocketing, and there is a shortage of housing. Better cooperation with neighbouring countries, to establish businesses there with local staff, as well as the numerous and costly international organisations, should keep a closer watch on corruption and the way certain countries in Africa and elsewhere are governed, in order to prevent these countries from becoming depopulated and Europe from becoming overpopulated.

Malheureusement, nous ne pouvons pas déplacer nos frontières. Nous devons respecter un équilibre : places disponible, infrastructures de transport, de nourriture, d'eau potable et de service, de lieux de santé, de formation , d'apport d'énergie etc. Les prix des terrains à bâtir flambent, le logements manquent . Une meilleure collaboration avec les pays environnant, pour y installer des entreprises, avec le personnel de proximité, également les organisations internationales, tellement nombreuses et coûteuses devraient mieux surveiller la corruption et l'art de diriger certains Pays d'Afrique et d'ailleurs , afin d'éviter que ces Pays se dépeuples et surpeuple l'Europe.

M
mako
The following contribution has been automatically translated from JA.

The idea that Switzerland is making immigrants take on low-paid, unskilled labour made me realise how times have changed. Wasn’t it the case that, in principle, Switzerland paid wages at a level that allowed workers to maintain a certain standard of living, regardless of the type of work? I had always assumed that this was what enabled the vast majority of people living in Switzerland to receive a high-quality education and maintain the so-called ‘rational Swiss citizen’. If it is truly the case that Switzerland has established a category of low-paid, unskilled labour and is assigning it to immigrants, I believe that category must be abolished without delay. Instead, as was the case in Switzerland previously, a minimum wage must be guaranteed to all Swiss citizens—one that ensures a level of purchasing power sufficient to foster and sustain ‘rational Swiss citizens’, regardless of the type of work. We must not commit the folly of adopting a system akin to Japan’s ‘technical intern’ scheme.

スイスが移民に低賃金単純労働を担わせているとは、時代が変わったなと思いました。スイスは原則的に労働の種類にかかわらず、労働者が一定の購買力を保つことができる水準の賃金を支払っていたのではありませんか？それによって、大多数のスイスに住む人々が、良質な教育を受け、いわゆる、「理性的なスイス国民」を維持してきたのだとばかり思っていました。もし本当に、スイスが低賃金単純労働というカテゴリーを設けて、それを移民に担わせているのだとしたら、一刻も早くそのカテゴリーを廃止して、以前のスイスのように、労働の種類を問わず、「理性的なスイス国民」を誕生させて維持できる程度の購買力を担保する賃金を最低賃金として、全てのスイス国民に保障する必要があると考えます。日本の「技能実習生」制度のような暗愚を犯してはなりません。

L
Leo_1970
The following contribution has been automatically translated from FR.

Sovereignty, Schengen and direct democracy __I am deliberately stepping back from the emotional debate surrounding the attack in Winterthur. Not because security isn’t important, but because I believe the real crux of the debate lies elsewhere.__For several days now, I have mainly been hearing the same argument against this initiative: ‘Beware of the Schengen agreements’, ‘Beware of the European Union’, ‘Beware of the diplomatic consequences’. Very well. So let’s talk about it seriously.__I am going to use a deliberately provocative word: interference. Not in the sense of some conspiracy theory, but in the sense of external political pressure that is increasingly weighing on Switzerland’s democratic choices. For the real question boils down to this: to what extent does the Swiss people remain sovereign if certain democratic decisions become practically impossible to implement without risking political or economic sanctions from supranational bodies? __Switzerland is supposed to be a direct democracy. The people vote, the people decide, the people take responsibility. Yet for years, whenever a people votes the ‘wrong way’, they are then told why their vote is unrealistic, dangerous or morally suspect. __The 2005 French referendum on the European Constitution remains a powerful symbol of this democratic divide. People say no, and technocrats then reorganise the treaties differently. Even today, many European citizens feel that the European Union has become a technocratic machine detached from reality. Yes, there is an elected European Parliament, but much of the power remains within complex structures that are difficult for the average citizen to understand. __And as soon as people speak of sovereignty, borders, wage pressure or demographics, they are often met with fear-mongering, moralising or simplistic accusations. Yet a large proportion of citizens are simply asking a legitimate question: does a small country still have the right to democratically control its future, its demographic trajectory and its social model without being subjected to constant external pressure? __That is the real debate

Souveraineté, Schengen et démocratie directe __Je vais volontairement sortir du débat émotionnel autour de l’attaque de Winterthour. Non pas parce que la sécurité n’est pas importante, mais parce que le vrai nœud du débat me semble ailleurs.__Depuis plusieurs jours, j’entends surtout le même argument contre cette initiative : « Attention aux accords de Schengen », « Attention à l’Union européenne », « Attention aux conséquences diplomatiques ». Très bien. Alors parlons-en sérieusement.__Je vais utiliser un mot volontairement provocateur : ingérence. Pas dans un délire complotiste, mais dans le sens d’une pression politique extérieure qui pèse de plus en plus sur les choix démocratiques suisses. Car la vraie question devient simple : jusqu’où le peuple suisse reste-t-il souverain si certaines décisions démocratiques deviennent pratiquement impossibles à appliquer sans risquer des sanctions politiques ou économiques venant de structures supranationales ? __La Suisse est censée être une démocratie directe. Le peuple vote, le peuple décide, le peuple assume. Or, depuis des années, lorsqu’un peuple vote dans le « mauvais sens », on lui explique ensuite pourquoi son vote serait irréaliste, dangereux ou moralement suspect. __Le référendum français de 2005 sur la Constitution européenne reste un symbole énorme de cette fracture démocratique. Des peuples disent non, et des technocrates réorganisent ensuite les traités autrement. Aujourd’hui encore, beaucoup de citoyens européens ont le sentiment que l’Union européenne est devenue une machine technocratique éloignée des réalités. Oui, il existe un Parlement européen élu, mais une grande partie du pouvoir reste dans des structures complexes et peu lisibles pour le citoyen moyen. __Et dès qu’un peuple parle de souveraineté, de frontières, de pression salariale ou de démographie, on lui répond souvent par la peur, la morale ou des accusations simplistes. Alors qu’une grande partie des citoyens posent simplement une question légitime : un petit pays a-t-il encore le droit de maîtriser démocratiquement son avenir, son rythme démographique et son modèle social sans subir une pression extérieure permanente ? __Voilà le vrai débat

K
KanisSapphirus

Switzerland’s infrastructure and housing pressures are real. But attributing them primarily to modest population growth, especially relative to other similar nations (e.g., Austria, Sweden) oversimplifies a more complex issue. ____A country should not simultaneously:____ • resist major infrastructure expansion;__ • restrict housing development;__ • maintain low taxes;__ • rely heavily on foreign labor in healthcare, construction, research, finance, etc.;____and then act surprised when growth creates bottlenecks.____Switzerland’s prosperity was not built in isolation. It emerged through international trade, finance, multinational firms, research institutions, and foreign labor — including many groups that earlier generations also feared or resented. I’ve not heard anyone complaining about the foreign billionaires buying up properties they rarely use or the tax windfalls from immigrants like the Glencore billionaires… ____If the concern is quality of life, then serious discussion should focus on housing policy, transport investment, labor-market strategy, and long-term demographic planning. ____Slogans implying that 9 million people is sustainable but 10 million represents civilizational collapse are disingenuous at best.____Specifically on the road infrastructure: maybe vote to raise the absurdly-low 40chf vignette fee? If you expect materially different outcomes while refusing to change the inputs to a process ... well, that's generally not how the world works.____As for congestion: if driving education taught that it's unacceptable to drive or overtake in the left lane when you are moving more than 20 km/h *below* the posted speed limit, that would go a long way towards easing congestion, especially on the A1. ;-)

J
Jorg Hiker

Imagine you are the boss of an American company. Would you invest in a country where you cannot work personally, where you are not easily allowed to relocate American managers or find trained staff, and which is openly hostile toward foreigners? Of course not. You would move your company elsewhere. Once that decision is made, it is incredibly difficult to turn back. Now, imagine you are a wealthy American or Asian man. Would you move your capital to a country where you aren't allowed to live? Unlikely.

D
DarioPad

I would not support this referendum in its current form. I understand why people are tempted by it; Switzerland feels more crowded, expensive, and stretched. But the proposed cap is too blunt, too legally risky, and too disconnected from the actual mechanisms causing pressure.____A better Swiss answer would be: controlled growth, not fantasy no-growth; capacity-based immigration, not unlimited demand-driven immigration; and serious infrastructure/housing reform, not just a constitutional number. The country does not need panic. It needs a dashboard, hard thresholds, and political courage to build where growth is happening.

H
heaven

Whether the Swiss population should be capped is a matter of intense public debate, with the electorate split almost evenly. The issue is the subject of a national referendum on June 14, 2026, on the "Sustainability Initiative," which would legally restrict the permanent resident population to 10 million before 2050.

W
wbrauen@cavalcasa.ch
The following contribution has been automatically translated from DE.

It’s unbelievable what lies and falsehoods are being spread! There is simply no plausible argument against this initiative. 1. If the initiative were adopted, nothing would happen at first! 2. If those in charge kept their current promises, there wouldn’t be 10 million people in Switzerland! 3. At best, in 2050 the citizens of the time could vote to overturn the cap, which they probably wouldn’t do, because by then things will be even tighter than they are today. If it’s rejected, we’ll be swamped by even more immigration! Is that what we want?

Es ist unglaublich was für Lügen und Unwahrheiten erzählt werden! Es gibt schlichtweg kein plausibles Argument gegen diese Initiative. 1. Nach Annahme der Initiative würde vorerst Garnichts passieren! 2. Wenn die Verantwortlichen ihre jetzigen Versprechen halten würden, gibt es keine 10Mio Schweiz! 3. Allenfalls könnten 2050 die damaligen Bürgerinnen und Bürger in einer Abstimmung die Deckelung kippen, was sie wahrscheinlich nicht machen würden, weil bis da alles noch viel enger sein wird als heute. Bei Ablehnung werden wir von noch mehr Zuwanderung überschwemmt! Wollen wir das

J
Jorg Hiker
@wbrauen@cavalcasa.ch

Please, consider what foreign companies would do. They will move their investments and capital elsewhere, rather than waiting around for Swiss to potentially change their minds. This initiative is potentially a fatal blow to the very heart of Swiss wealth.

Anonymous
Anonymous
The following contribution has been automatically translated from DE.

Why not simply introduce very high, sector-specific minimum wages for immigrants instead of points-based systems and red tape – and apply this to everyone? This would reduce the red tape involved in labour migration from third countries. And it would likely lead to less wage pressure and less unchecked growth. Companies would be encouraged to recruit domestically first or actively retrain local workers – retraining could be supported by tax breaks. In this way, we would fill jobs with people who already live here, reduce unemployment and ease the strain on infrastructure. And this can, if necessary, be renegotiated with the EU at a later date.

Wieso nicht einfach sehr hohe, branchenspezifische Mindestgehälter für Zuwanderer anstelle von Punktesystemen und Bürokratie – und zwar für alle? Somit gäbe es einen Bürokratie-Abbau bei der Drittstaaten-Arbeitsmigration. Und wohl weniger Lohndruck und weniger massloses Wachstum. Unternehmen würden dazu motiviert, zuerst im Inland zu rekrutieren oder Inländer aktiv umzuschulen – Umschulungen könnten durch Steuererleichterungen unterstützt werden. So besetzen wir Stellen mit Menschen, die schon hier leben, senken die Arbeitslosigkeit und entlasten die Infrastruktur. Und dies kann, wenn nötig, später mit der EU nachverhandelt werden.

F
flurian@gmx.ch
The following contribution has been automatically translated from DE.

For decades, Swiss policy has promoted growth without regard for its own population or the natural environment

Seit Jahrzehnten befördert die CH-Politik ein Wachstum ohne Rücksicht auf die__eigene Bevölkerung, Natur

F
Francilla
The following contribution has been automatically translated from IT.

A housing crisis? It would be better to rephrase the problem. A crisis of housing that is affordable for a working-class family. Is the real problem really overcrowded trains? A lack of space? I have only theoretical memories of where such tall tales lead. Nothing good. There are too many of us on the planet; it seems to me that the aim is driven by a desire to create, through years of planning and implementation, happy havens for those who can afford them. The rest of the world can fend for itself. That is how Switzerland will survive. For those who can afford it.

Crisi degli alloggi? Sarebbe meglio riformulare il problema. Crisi degli alloggi a prezzi accessibili ad una famiglia di lavoratori. Veramente il problema sono i treni affollati? La mancanza di spazio? Ho ricordi solo teorici di quello a cui portano queste affabulazioni. Nulla di buono. Siamo troppi sul pianeta, lo scopo mi sembra sia spinto dal desiderio di creare, con anni di preparazione ed attuazione , delle isole felici per chi potrà pagare. Il resto del mondo si arrangi. È così che la Svizzera potrà sopravvivere. Per chi se la potrà permettere.

T
THH
The following contribution has been automatically translated from DE.

As a Swiss expatriate living in Germany, I see and experience the virtually unrestricted influx and acceptance of foreign nationals and asylum seekers in this country. I find the impact on the entire democratic system alarming. Here are just a few of the consequences:__- a significant deterioration in the healthcare system__- a significant increase in the financial burden, e.g. due to universal basic income__- rising crime__- poorer school education__- a more negative view of women among certain groups of people of different religious affiliations__- growth in a political party that is stirring up sentiment here as a result of general dissatisfaction among local citizens__etc.

Als Auslandsschweizer in Deutschland sehe und erlebe ich in diesem Land den quasi uneingeschränkten Zuzug sowie die Aufnahme von auslandischen Nationalitäten und Asylanten. Erschreckend sind für mich die Auswirkungen auf das gesamte demokratische System. Nachfolgend nur ein paar Auswirkungen:__- deutliche Verschlechterung im Gesundheitssystem__- deutliche steigende finanzielle Belastung durch z. B. Bürgergeld__- steigende Kriminalität__- schlechtere Schulausbildung__- schlechteres Frauenbild bei bestimmten Personengruppen mit anderer Religionszugehörigkeit__- Zuwachs bei einer Partei, die hier Stimmung macht infolge genereller Unzufriedenheit der einheimischen Bürger__etc.

V
VBK

Before voting yes, please consider this :__- the bilateral agreements, which would be cancelled if the initiative passes, allow Swiss people to work, study, and retire in Europe__- economic research clearly proves that immigrants contribute more to the Swiss social security system (including AVS/AHV, disability, unemployment, welfare....) than they benefit__- demographically, immigration helps to slow the effects of population ageing __- the Schengen agreement, which Switzerland would end up leaving if the initiative passes, allows tourists to visit all of Europe - including Switzerland - with one visa, greatly benefiting the Swiss tourism sector__I do not want to give up these advantages. I will vote no.

W
wbrauen@cavalcasa.ch
The following contribution has been automatically translated from DE.

In the hatred directed at the SVP, even spurious arguments are being trotted out. If companies were not, in many cases, simply ‘dumping’ the employees living here—especially older ones— because they can so easily be replaced by younger, cheaper workers from abroad (thanks to the AFMP) and asylum abuse were finally curbed, we would have less immigration, fewer traffic jams, less overcrowding, cheaper housing, fewer extensions in all areas, less crime, etc.! The list could go on. Why on earth do the opponents fail to see this?

Im Hass gegen die SVP, werden auch Scheinargumente herbeigezogen. Wenn die Firmen die hier lebenden, vor allem auch älteren Mitarbeitende nicht in vielen Fällen einfach "abgestoßen", werden könnten, weil sie so einfach mit jüngere, kostengünstigeren Leuten aus dem Ausland ersetzt werden können (dank PFZ) und den Asylmissbrauch endlich eingedämmt würde, hätten wir weniger Zuwanderung, weniger Staus, weniger Gedränge, günstigere Wohnungen, in allen Bereichen weniger Erweiterungsbauten, weniger Kriminalität usw! Die Liste könnte noch erweitert werden. Warum nur, wird das von den Gegnern nicht eingesehen

J
Jorg Hiker
@wbrauen@cavalcasa.ch

Since you admit which politicians are responsible for inaction regarding real solutions—masking it with a populist initiative—consider this: why reward populist propaganda? Does it not just lead to more populism and make improving Switzerland even more difficult

B
bruno.hug69@gmail.com
The following contribution has been automatically translated from DE.

Traffic jams on the roads and a lack of space on SBB trains in both classes have been an issue for more than 30 years. What has happened since then? It’s like a drop in the ocean. Our government’s inaction (with an SVP majority) repeatedly encourages such initiatives, but by launching these initiatives, they are not hoping to solve the problems, but merely to win more votes in the elections. As long as the federal government in Bern fails to take action and finally tackle viable solutions to the problems, there will be a constant stream of such initiatives, which are by no means politically watertight and, above all, appeal to the emotions of voters rather than to reason. NB: The majority of Britons want to return to the EU because they are struggling since Brexit.

Staus im Auto und Platznot in der SBB in beiden Klassen gibt es schon seit mehr als 30 Jahren. Was ist seither geschehen? Tropfen auf einen heissen Stein. Das Nichtstun unserer Regierung (Mehrheit SVP) leistet solchen Initiativen immer wieder Vorschub, aber mit den von Ihnen lancierten Initativen erhoffen sie sich keine Lösung der Probleme, sondern nur mehr Stimmen bei den Wahlen. Solange Bundesbern nicht den Finger z. A. rauszieht und endlich gangbare Problemlösungen angeht, gibt es immer wieder solche Initiaven, die politisch keineswegs wasserdicht sind und vor allem an die Emotionen der Stimmbürger appelliert statt an die Vernunft. NB: Die Mehrheit der Briten wollen wieder zurück zur EU, weil es ihnen nach dem Brexit nur noch dreckig geht.

A
AnLe88
The following contribution has been automatically translated from DE.

An exciting debate! The piece on the ‘GDP trap’ in particular hits the nail on the head. We often discuss things here as if the world had stood still technologically since 1990.____Jorg Hiker asks: Who will sweep the streets or build houses in the future? His solution is more immigration. My answer is: robotics. If you look at high-tech hubs like Shenzhen or Singapore today, you’ll see drone logistics and autonomous cleaning systems are already part of everyday life. A humanoid general-purpose robot (think Tesla Optimus or Unitree) will soon be scalable for around CHF 20,000 – that’s cheaper than an import work visa, including the massive follow-on costs for our infrastructure.____Ssophieisslaying is right: we need solutions for housing and schools. But the problem won’t be solved by continuing to fill a 1-litre container with 3 litres (as ProperD aptly illustrates). We need to boost productivity! According to the WEF 2026 report, AI agents can already automate 30% of the current workload TODAY.____We do not need a ‘mass’ of people for the AHV, but ‘quality’ through technological value creation. ____If we cap immigration, we will create the necessary pressure for innovation that Switzerland needs to avoid becoming an open-air museum whilst Asia overtakes us. The 10-million initiative is the wake-up call to finally decouple our economic model from population size. Prosperity through technology, not through overcrowding!

Spannende Debatte! Besonders der Beitrag zur «BIP-Falle» trifft den Nagel auf den Kopf. Wir diskutieren hier oft so, als stünde die Welt technologisch im Jahr 1990 still.____Jorg Hiker fragt: Wer wischt künftig die Strassen oder baut Häuser? Seine Lösung ist mehr Zuwanderung. Meine Antwort lautet: Robotik. Wer heute in High-Tech-Hubs wie Shenzhen oder Singapur schaut, sieht Drohnen-Logistik und autonome Reinigungssysteme bereits als Alltag. Ein humanoider Allzweck-Roboter (Stichwort Tesla Optimus oder Unitree) wird bald für ca. 20'000 CHF skalierbar sein – das ist günstiger als ein Import-Arbeitsvisum inklusive der massiven Folgekosten für unsere Infrastruktur.____Ssophieisslaying hat recht: Wir brauchen Lösungen für Wohnraum und Schulen. Aber das Problem wird nicht gelöst, indem wir den 1-Liter-Behälter immer weiter mit 3 Litern füllen (wie ProperD treffend illustriert). Wir müssen die Produktivität steigern! Laut WEF-Bericht 2026 können KI-Agenten bereits HEUTE 30% der aktuellen Arbeitslast automatisieren.____Wir brauchen für die AHV keine «Masse» an Köpfen, sondern «Klasse» durch technologische Wertschöpfung. ____Wenn wir die Zuwanderung deckeln, erzeugen wir den nötigen Innovationsdruck, den die Schweiz braucht, um nicht zum Freilichtmuseum zu werden, während Asien an uns vorbeizieht. Die 10-Millionen-Initiative ist der Weckruf, um unser Wirtschaftsmodell endlich von der Einwohnerzahl zu entkoppeln. Wohlstand durch Technologie, nicht durch Dichtestress!

J
Jorg Hiker
@AnLe88

@AnLe88__I appreciate your interest in my posts, and in robots. However, please show an existing, functioning alternative to the current Swiss economy, before destroying it. Robots are not yet in common everyday use anywhere. Currently: you accept, that 10-million initiative would require mass use of robots or another currently non existing technology. I will be happy to discuss robotics with you further, anyway.

J
Jorg Hiker
@AnLe88

@AnLe88__I’m glad you’re interested in my posts and in robots. However, please first point to an existing, functioning alternative to the current Swiss economy before you destroy it. Robots are not yet in everyday use anywhere. At present, you are assuming that the 10-million initiative would require the massive deployment of robots or some other technology that does not yet exist. In any case, I am happy to discuss robotics further with you.

Miles Schofield
Major Wedgie

In my opinion it should already have been capped at 8 million. The Swiss infrastructure is not made for such large numbers of people on a permanent basis. The roads are packed full. The trains and stations are packed full. The shopping areas are packed full. Recreational areas are packed full. Interestingly, a friend of mine who is a staunch leftie was complaining that the packages delivered to his apartment block are being stolen. It seems large population can bring larger problems. You need a larger police force for example. So to all those peddling the idea that immigrants increase the pension pot may need to rethink their thesis. Immigrants get old too.

J
Jorg Hiker
@Major Wedgie

Maybe improving local police in your town is a better way to stop crime, than populist referendums

J
Jorg Hiker

I agree that Switzerland lacks sufficient roads, affordable housing, and other infrastructure. However, this is the legacy of several decades of underinvestment. Even to support people already living in Switzerland, existing roads, housing, and public transport would need to be significantly expanded, and quickly. Given that the construction sector relies heavily on a foreign workforce—especially Italians and Poles in my local area—immigrants will actually help solve these issues. Blocking immigration would cause the Swiss building sector to collapse.

S
sophieisslaying
The following contribution has been automatically translated from DE.

Adjusting immigration, yes, but in this way? No. Separating families and not leaving behind Swiss citizens living abroad? Risking the EU agreement? These are all things that should not be recklessly put at risk in today’s world. ____Of course, Switzerland’s population is growing rapidly. More people mean more traffic, higher rents and greater pressure on schools, hospitals and the environment. It is understandable that many people are concerned. That is why solutions and better planning are needed. But a rigid limit of 10 million inhabitants is not a realistic answer to a complex problem. ____Switzerland is closely linked to Europe economically and politically. Many sectors, such as healthcare, IT and the construction industry, rely on skilled workers from abroad. If immigration is restricted too severely, it could harm the economy and, consequently, our everyday lives. Moreover, many Swiss people live abroad. It would be unfair if one day they were no longer able to return without difficulty. ____Instead of scaremongering with a fixed figure, politicians should take targeted action: build more housing, improve public transport and promote integration. The challenges of population growth are not solved with simple slogans, but with long-term and well-thought-out solutions.

Einwanderung anpassen, ja, auf diese Art? Nein. Familien trennen und Schweizer, die im Ausland wohnen, nicht zurücklassen? Das EU-Abkommen riskieren? Alle Dinge, die man in der heutigen Weltlage nicht leichtfertig aufs Spiel setzen sollte. ____Natürlich wächst die Bevölkerung in der Schweiz stark. Mehr Menschen bedeuten mehr Verkehr, höhere Mieten und mehr Druck auf Schulen, Spitäler und die Umwelt. Dass viele Menschen sich Sorgen machen, ist verständlich. Deshalb braucht es Lösungen und eine bessere Planung. Aber eine starre Grenze von 10 Millionen Einwohnern ist keine realistische Antwort auf ein komplexes Problem. ____Die Schweiz ist wirtschaftlich und politisch eng mit Europa verbunden. Viele Branchen wie das Gesundheitswesen, die IT oder das Baugewerbe sind auf Fachkräfte aus dem Ausland angewiesen. Wenn man die Zuwanderung zu stark einschränkt, könnte das der Wirtschaft und damit auch unserem Alltag schaden. Zudem leben viele Schweizerinnen und Schweizer im Ausland. Es wäre unfair, wenn sie eines Tages nicht mehr problemlos zurückkehren könnten. ____Statt mit einer fixen Zahl Angst zu machen, sollte die Politik gezielt handeln: mehr Wohnungen bauen, den öffentlichen Verkehr verbessern und die Integration fördern. Die Herausforderungen des Bevölkerungswachstums löst man nicht mit einfachen Parolen, sondern mit langfristigen und durchdachten Lösungen.

V
VuDuLéman
The following contribution has been automatically translated from FR.

Je lis cet article et ses commentaires depuis un moment, et j'hésite à me lancer — les avis sont tranchés et les expériences très diverses. Mais voilà ce que j'en pense, en tout cas pour l'instant.
Les préoccupations qui alimentent cette initiative ne me semblent pas sans fondement: la pression sur le logement est réelle, la concurrence salariale dans certains secteurs est une réalité concrète, et le sentiment que la croissance profite davantage aux entreprises qu'aux résidents de longue date mérite d'être pris au sérieux — et pas seulement balayé d'un revers de main.
Cela dit, il me semble utile de rappeler que la Suisse dispose déjà de garde-fous. Pour les ressortissants UE/AELE, la libre circulation n'est pas un droit inconditionnel : un permis de travail exige un contrat; sans emploi, il faut des moyens suffisants et une assurance maladie. L'immigration hors UE/AELE est encadrée par un contingent annuel de 8 500 permis — qui n'est d'ailleurs pas entièrement utilisé chaque année.
À cela s'ajoute une réalité que je trouve difficile à ignorer : selon le KOF, il pourrait manquer 400 000 personnes sur le marché du travail d'ici dix ans. Et si le plafond de l'initiative était dépassé, c'est la libre circulation — et les accords bilatéraux — qui seraient remis en cause.
La vraie question n'est donc peut-être pas tant « plus ou moins d'immigration », mais comment gérer la croissance — logement, infrastructures, intégration, vieillissement — sans fragiliser ni les services publics ni l'économie?

Je lis cet article et ses commentaires depuis un moment, et j'hésite à me lancer — les avis sont tranchés et les expériences très diverses. Mais voilà ce que j'en pense, en tout cas pour l'instant.__Les préoccupations qui alimentent cette initiative ne me semblent pas sans fondement: la pression sur le logement est réelle, la concurrence salariale dans certains secteurs est une réalité concrète, et le sentiment que la croissance profite davantage aux entreprises qu'aux résidents de longue date mérite d'être pris au sérieux — et pas seulement balayé d'un revers de main.__Cela dit, il me semble utile de rappeler que la Suisse dispose déjà de garde-fous. Pour les ressortissants UE/AELE, la libre circulation n'est pas un droit inconditionnel : un permis de travail exige un contrat; sans emploi, il faut des moyens suffisants et une assurance maladie. L'immigration hors UE/AELE est encadrée par un contingent annuel de 8 500 permis — qui n'est d'ailleurs pas entièrement utilisé chaque année.__À cela s'ajoute une réalité que je trouve difficile à ignorer : selon le KOF, il pourrait manquer 400 000 personnes sur le marché du travail d'ici dix ans. Et si le plafond de l'initiative était dépassé, c'est la libre circulation — et les accords bilatéraux — qui seraient remis en cause.__La vraie question n'est donc peut-être pas tant « plus ou moins d'immigration », mais comment gérer la croissance — logement, infrastructures, intégration, vieillissement — sans fragiliser ni les services publics ni l'économie

Samuel Jaberg
Samuel Jaberg SWI SWISSINFO.CH
The following contribution has been automatically translated from FR.
@VuDuLéman

Hello, thank you for your comment. You’ve done well to take the plunge and share your detailed views on this wide-ranging issue of European immigration in Switzerland.

Bonjour, merci de votre commentaire. Vous avez bien fait de vous lancer et de partager votre avis circonstancié sur cette vaste question de l'immigration européenne en Suisse.

SWI swissinfo.ch - a branch of Swiss Broadcasting Corporation SRG SSR

SWI swissinfo.ch - a branch of Swiss Broadcasting Corporation SRG SSR