To me, situation is getting back to pre-may-2011 state. There were quotas (although I don't remember if they weren't higher). It WAS hard for me to find a job, and this was one of the reasons. But as said before - in this crisis and stuff, who can blame them? If they could easily limit GE and FR citizens they would do it.
I would expect that non-eu will get hit next, unless economy will pick up (kind of unlikely this year). These are political decisions, of course. There will be some real impact, but I would say not so big.
Anyway, if you are a true expert, gem amongst many, have no fear, there are always ways even with depleted B permit quota. You can have 1 year contract on L for example with clause for prolongation. As for rest of us... well these are tough times, and Swiss have right to do what they want and feel is necessary to protect them. We are just guests here after all

And UK.

Anyways, you can't compare transitional periods for 2 years (applied to EU-8) with "transitional" periods which are actually for 7 years (maximum possible!) for EU-2.
Why? Maybe, just maybe because EU-2 wants to work, EU-2 reguires work permits which are constantly denied, and maybe, just maybe, EU-2 is not quite a bunch of gypsies as you all are "thought" by the "Gospel" of "St." Daily Mail and the likes? I am just sayin'.

Yeah well thats why i added the word 'few' in there, didnt I. But if we want to get technical, the reason I didnt add UK was because the UK restricted access to some benefits i.e. unemployment but not to labor. Therefore wasnt quid pro quo Ireland and Sweden who had completely 'zero restrictions'.

Unless of course your completely wrong . The EU 8 did have those restrictions. The major bordering countries of Austria and Germany especially wished for the restrictions to last longer than 2 years - which they did ending in 2011. Belgium and Denmark lifted the final restrictions in 2009 (5years after EU8 entry).

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleases...ence=IP/11/506

The final restrictions were lifted on 1st May 2011. Note this quote in particular 'There were three phases (2+3+2 years) in the 2003 transitional arrangements.....' applied to EU 8.

http://totallyexpat.com/global-immig...ansion-states/

If only any mention of that had been in my post. Make sure next time when you quote, your not quoting the wrong poster in your 'BBC' kind of way i.e. zero relevance to this thread . Just sayin'.

I am not completely wrong. EU-8 was better (and still is) treated by older members. In reality EU-8 had a lot of more "rights" within EU than EU-2. Not that I blame EU-8, if this is what you understand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_en...European_Union

The part with the "bunch of gypsies" was not actually a reply to you, to be fair.

Before we start to define what 'others' are; arent most EU immigrants here economic refugees? Why differentiate?

Definition of 'Economic Refugee'
A person who leavestheir home country for a new country, in search of better job prospects and higher living standards. Economic refugees see little opportunity in their own countries to escape poverty and are willing to start over in a new country, for the chance at a better life. An example of an economic refugee would be a computer programmer who makes next to nothing in his or her home country and emigrates, in order to collect a substantially higher wage.



Investopedia explains 'Economic Refugee'
Traditionally, a refugee is someone who is granted asylum in a foreign country because of life-threatening political or religious prosecution, in his or her home country. Since most countries have border controls and restrict who may enter, work and reside there, a person cannot simply move to the country of his or her choice, but must either be granted permission by the government or try to enter and live in the country, without adverselycoming into contact with the law.

Did you mean Refugee ?

I suppose there is an option available to Switzerland by virtue of Article 44 of the Refugee Convention, just denounce it a year in advance IF it is asylum seeker / refugees that needed curbing, either temporarily or permanently. I am quite sure it can be reactivated at a later stage.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/refugees.htm

Please read my post again and once you have read it please make sure you understand the difference as above.

(Economical versus original refugee) perhaps you are one of the above but one presumes not the latter.

I suggest you look beyond Investopedia for explanations or definitions.

Try this:

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/arp/faqs.html

Keywords: Migrants, Refugees and Asylum Seekers.

A sizeable amount of entrees from eg Eritrea appear on the stats. If the issue was really about permits, social cohesion, pressure on wages, black jobs etc., wouldn´t it be prudent to halt asylum, just like this valve process ?

Oh! Honey, i presume that you are clearly touched by my reply. I will now enjoy a much needed night out with my (lic.iur) hubby. I suggest you do the same.

Kindest regards
J

I knew something like this was coming. Portugal, Spain and Greece may be next. I doubt limits would be put on Scandinavians, Benelux, France, Germany, Italy (despite the debt) and the UK.

In short, your remark may be meant humourous, but is against half a dozen laws and at least two articles of the Federal Constitution and so not humour but rubbish

Mrs Sommaruga did NOT "cherrypick the countries in question, but included the countries in accordance with treaties with the E.U.. There will be no trade war. The EU anyway can be expected to accept EU-treaties.

I very much doubt that. Doing this would proberably mean revoking the bilateral agreements with EU, which then would lead to a economic downturn. As the EU will hardly do similar deals with Switzerland a second time, the only remaining option for Switzerland were entering the EU, which again is not in the interest of the people who are most likely to want to limit immigriation.

The whole talk against the billateral agreements has to be taken with a grain of salt. The people who do it, know very well, that the alternative is entering the EU. Thus they are not likely to take any drastic measures, altought they think that talking about talking such measures will gain them public support.

Portugal, Spain and Greece can NOT be "next" as such a thing would be against the Bilateral Treaties.

That was the one of the smartest moves Switzerland ever made: not joining the EU.

Unlike what some fear-mongers want to make us believe, ending the bilateral agreements I would not be the end of the world. Most importantly it would not affect the free trade agreement of 1972 and the agreement on insurance of 1989. If net immigration does not decline over the next few years, there might be simply no alternative...

The people from the Balkans came years ago as refugees and later brought their families in. There are hardly any people coming in from that region now. Not sure about the Latin Americans - there's a tiny Brazilian community in Switzerland that came in through the quota system - other than that I really don't ever see anyone here from that region.

As for the Germans: it's the chicken and the egg problem. Jobs (e.g. In the service sector, at the Universities etc.) are created because of the influx of people. These are jobs, however, the Swiss people could probably do without as they just add additional strain on the infrastructure and lead to the worrisome fact that some Swiss are soon to be minorities in their own communities.

Just to be clear, I am against any discrimination towards EU-2 citizens. They should have the same rights as all EU citizens.

they do. There's no discrimination going on. Both the EU and Switzerland signed a legally binding contract. That contract states that within a certain period of time, should immigration numbers pass a certain threshold, Switzerland is allowed to limit immigration from the EU-2 countries for 1-2 years. Switzerland chose to make use of this clause now but only invoked it for 1 year (they could have used it for 2).

Swiss immigration rules for non-EU/non-EFTA citizens were far more liberal before the Bilaterals but had to be adapted to EU-rules. And there are no "part-exit" clauses in those rules. This exactly is the reason why Mrs Sommaruga and her specialists took the course finally chosen. That some EU folks are a bit angry about yet another country after Denmark and others to use loopholes for political moves may be understandable. But they may have to learn that people use THE EU-rules and regulations in the favour of their countries. Right now, France and Germany have requested the EU to allow temporary re-introductions of systematic border controls on border-sectors chosen.