Swiss news site The Local reports that new
laws taking effect this month will make it even more difficult for immigrants
to obtain citizenship.
It
has apparently been established law for some time that immigrants collecting
social benefits are barred from naturalization. The new law, however, now
also prohibits naturalization if an applicant has accepted social benefits at
any time during the previous three years.
An
exception is made if the benefits “are paid back in full.”
On
the other hand, applicants for citizenship now must only have resided in
Switzerland for ten years instead of 12, as was the case before the new law
took effect.
It’s
important to make a distinction here. The change in law is not saying the
recipients on social welfare will be deported. It is merely closing them off
from citizenship until they can demonstrate they do not require social
assistance.
There
is a difference here between residency and naturalization, and the two ought
not to be confused. The state is quite flexible with legal residency. The rules
for extending citizenship, though, are far more rigorous.
Indeed,
Switzerland has a large number of foreign born residents, and its economy
includes many immigrant workers.
Unlike
many other nations, though, the Swiss recognize that the political system is
distinct from the economic system, and admitting a migrant to the Swiss
economic sphere does not necessarily mean the state must also grant access to
the political sphere.
Moreover,
in nearly all cases, immigrants residing in Switzerland have citizenship.
They’re simply citizens somewhere else. (Swiss law specifically protects
immigrant residents from deportation in case of statelessness.)
This
is true everywhere, of course. Non-resident immigrants residing in the US, for
example, are already citizens. They’re simply citizens somewhere else. This
fact is confused by the usage of phrases like “illegal alien” or “undocumented
worker” which ignore the actual citizenship status of these workers. In most
cases, the term “foreign national” — which highlights the fact these people are
not stateless — is really more useful than “illegal immigrant.”
After
all, the “illegality” of an immigrant is a totally arbitrary status made up by
by government bureaucrats, and is no more morally legitimate than the term
“illegal drugs.” In both cases, the only difference between legal and illegal
is some government paperwork.
On
the other hand, there is no clear reason why foreign nationals residing
anywhere ought to be given an easy path to citizenship, especially in cases
where those residents rely on taxpayer funded services.
This
position, by the way, need not violate the property rights of immigrant
residents. After all, property rights exist everywhere, regardless of location,
and a respect for property rights suggests that persons ought to be allowed to
freely contract with others for employment, housing, and other goods —
regardless of an arbitrary government decree of illegality.
In a 2017 column titled “Don’t Confuse Immigration with Naturalization,”
I explore this topic further.
Preferably,
access to the economic system is open to anyone with whom persons are willing
to contract, whether they be employers, landlords, shopkeepers, and potential
customers for new immigrant-owned businesses. Given that people tend to be
quite open to economic ties with others, accessing the economic sphere has long
been quite easy for immigrants to the United States. This is precisely because
the economic sphere is relatively free and open in the US.
Granting access to the political sphere, however, opens up a variety of
other problems, such as extending access to the ballot box, and encouraging the
use of political power to enrich one’s self or one’s own group. This problem is
hardly unique to immigrants, as I’ve explained here, but as the Swiss
understand, restricting access to the political system in this case is often
quite prudent. Thus, is makes sense to be open to migration, while being less
open with the extension of citizenship privileges.
The ideal, of course, is to
shrink the political sphere in such a way that citizenship ceases to be
important. In a laissez faire economy where
the state has only a tiny role in the regulation and ownership of property,
then it would not be terribly important if one enjoys citizenship or not.
The free exercise of one’s property rights would be assured regardless.
Ryan W.
McMaken is the editor of Mises Daily and The Austrian. Send him mail.
