I’ve just read the text of the initiative in French. The crimes that it applies to are:

Murder
Rape
Grave sexual crimes
Drug trafficking
People trafficking
Abuse of social aid or social insurance.

Offenders would be banned from Switzerland for 5 to 15 years. If they returned and offended again the ban would be 20 years.

There is nothing in the initiative that would appear to take away the normal right of appeal.

PS. Basel already deports 20 to 40 people every year under existing legislation.

Thanks Blonaybear,

Now for the tricky part:

How is "abuse" defined?

Sounds reasonable to me!

This article is about binge drinking drunken English yobs. Where's the evidence that binge drinking is a problem in Switzerland? Where's the evidence that deporting foreign criminals reduces binge drinking by the English?

Presumably you'd apply for an unlimited Verbrecherbewilligung.

Try asylum seeker claiming state aid : housing, child benefit, financial assistance & also working without permit & therfore not paying taxes..... Same as anywhere else, they are abusing the system.

My main issue is not with the initiative, but with who is pushing it & also the xenophobic subtext regards the image (white sheep / black sheep).

The article wasn't meant as a direct comparison but that if the issue of criminality isn't nipped in the bud, what you get is social decline i.e. UK. And a sensible way for the Swiss to deal with severe criminality would be to deport them back to their own country as it would be silly for the Swiss to pay for their incarceration. Seems sensible. No?

What it says in French is: s’ils ont perçu abusivement des prestations des assurances sociales ou de l’aide sociale so I used the word abuse which, on reflection, was probably not correct. It's better described as fraud or false claims and, obviously, something that is already a criminal offence.

My point is, "abuse" is a gray area term that can be easily....abused.

My objection with this initiative is that it targets a group, effectively scapegoating them, and this group has no recourse for opposing the matter, as this group can't vote.

Very sneaky tactics.

<shrug>

suggest we agree to disagree on this one ... my example is pretty crystal in its clarity .... have you read the full text on this ?

Blonaybear,

"fraud or false claims".... this is not what your french quote above says, either.....

indeed that would be a whole new thread but in summary, you can drink 24 hours a day here yet there is no real fallout from that (bar social cases of course). I haven't seen a fight in a long time here.

[quote=Polorise;86453]

Your example is just one example that is crystal clear, maybe (debatable, of course, but let's agree to disagree).

And yet,

Real life is very seldom that crystal clear.

<shrug>

Does anybody know what the current laws are regarding deportation of "criminals who are foreigners?" I'm assuming they have some sort of system in place and if so, why then is the SVP looking to change the current system?

The initiative is an amendment to the constitution 18/4/99 (Art. 121,al. 3 à 6).
The initiative refers to crimes so, by definition, the offence has to be a crime already.

[QUOTE=blueshrimp;86458] ....sounds like the only thing that's crystal clear is that nothing is crystal clear. The only thing not up for debate is that everything is up for debate.

By the way,

Have you?

Take a look at the first statement in bold on page 12 of the ausschaffungsinitiative-d.pdf available at:
http://www.typo3start.ch/sites/aussc...itiative-d.pdf

It is pretty scary stuff (I am referring, of course, to the statement that Ausslaender that do not want to integrate should be kicked out!)! Now what, are they going to kick out foreigners who still want to go to their own churches, who speak their own language at home, who criticize Switzerland, because these are signs of "not wanting to integrate"?

While this is not the main point of the initiative, the fact that this is the background thinking /justification for it should raise many red flags to the rational thinker....

Reading the rest of the article, it just reads like a repressive manifesto (take a look, for instance, at p17, where prostitution is considered one crime for which these foreigners should be deported). My german is not that great, but it appears to me that not only "murder", but any kind of homicide is included as well (go back to where I said you run over a kid chasing a soccer ball, please, curiously this is used as an example, but the driver is not any old "foreigner", but a "Manager". Wonder if the veredict as to what constitutes "deportation permissible" homicide would change if the driver were not a manager, but a factory worker) Take a look at the manifesto yourself, and then tell me, whether it still sounds like a good idea.

Yikes.

A very fair question, although it's surely also reasonable for people to respond to the 'sheep' image as that is how the initiative is being advertised and promoted and presumably this is the understanding the SVP are intending to convey, otherwise why would they use it?

I started reading the SVP's arguments in favour document, but stopped when I got to the bit about the Muslim population having doubled in 10 years and the statement, presumably in support of deporting benefit cheats, as follows:

"Die britische Regierung gibt offen zu, dass Polygamie in muslimischen Kreisen Grossbritanniens in Mode kommt und legal ausgelebt werden kann. Daher dürfen Muslime in Grossbritannien auch für jede Frau staatliche Sozialleistungen beantragen, wenn die Polygamie in ihrem Ursprungsland praktiziert wird."

In other words (if you'll excuse my German):
The British government openly admits that polygamy is coming into fashion in Muslim circles in Great Britain and can be legally lived out. Therefore, many Muslims in Great Britain are also allowed to apply for national social security benefits for each wife, if polygamy is practiced in their country of origin.

Well, if anyone believes that they'll believe anything.

Not as far fetched as you might think: http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/l...cle1848488.ece

"From The Times
May 28, 2007
1,000 men living legally with multiple wives despite fears over exploitation
Dominic Kennedy
Polygamous marriage is flourishing as the Government admits for the first time that nearly a thousand men are living legally with multiple wives in Britain.

Although the families are entitled to claim social security for each wife, no one has counted how many of them are on benefits.

Ministers appear to be ignoring the separate practice of unauthorised polygamy, which is said to have become commonplace in some Muslim communities. The Ministry of Justice admits that it has no estimates of numbers for these unions, which are often presided over by an Islamic cleric........"

my point exactly, the use of the image is deplorable. The whole thing is an attempt by the SVP to garner further support for crank schemes, based on existing immigration laws. Coming from the UK, am used to Spin

A legal expert may disagree, but thats my take.

Off topic - If you keep doing that with your avatar I'll start a "What happened to Victor Meldrew" thread - I miss the old fart.
Ooh, I've come over all Mod-like .