Exceptionalism=Standing out=Aufstaenden=Verboten!

I've found another article concerning "Facilitated Naturalisation". Again, it is not relevant to the professor's case of "Regular Naturalisation". However, it is interesting in that it demonstrates the position of the Bund, canton and community with respect to "Facilitated naturalisation", a subject which has caused some side discussion in this thread.

(German) http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/zuerich/...story/28976552

Clear is that in the case of "Facilitated naturalisation" the decision is made at the Bund level and the canton and the community are merely informed of the decision. The paper flow between the Bund, canton, community and, maybe, the "Heimatort" of the Swiss spouse, is not relevant to this decision making authority. The canton and the community can, however, if they so wish, challenge the decision of the Bund through the courts. Since challenging the decision is time consuming and usually fruitless, this is rarely attempted. This also explains why they (canton and community) in some cases don't bother even with an interview of the naturalisation candidate.

In my case (Facilitated Naturalisation), my wife (who is Swiss) and I had a short interview at a police station which was little more than an identity check and may be also served as a language test. That was it.

One "Blick" reader commented that Prof. Dunn's naturalization request was denied at the request of the USA. This is the translated comment:

"The USA decides who will be naturalized in Switzerland, exactly like the Americans dictate all other processes. The USA monitors not for nothing all telephone calls and all electronic data transmissions within the Swiss borders. That is done of course with the complete agreement from the Swiss government. The Americans demanded from Switzerland that the naturalization not take place, that decision wasn't made by Switzerland".

As I enjoy conspiracy theories, I don't necessarily want to shoot a hole in this one. However, as I recall, nearly all of my naturalization communications were by normal Swiss Post, and I didn't notice any tampering of the envelopes, although there was the occasional telephone call and email to arrange appointments. But, then again, the level of monitoring of a little guy like me and an ETH engineering professor might be different.

http://www.blick.ch/news/schweiz/zen...id3208778.html

Ha, priceless. I doubt the US even knows who the guy is. The story probably hasn't even made a ripple in the US news cause it's just not something they'd be interested.

If they were going to do that sort of thing Tina Turner would have been the more likely recipient. Of course would have caused more stink, but she'd already made it clear she planned to renounce once she had her Swiss citizenship. Much more valid reason for requesting a denial of citizenship - after all look at all that tax money they won't get any more from her.

Yikes.


Now that we have introduced the NSA, evil Americans, conspiracy theories, the fact that Americans control all aspects of Swiss decision making and Tina Turner to this thread - I see another 10,000 views in no time!

Wolli, that wasn't you posting on Blick, was it?

I had never realized that the Blick website even had articles on it.

No, but you can hear such rubbish all the tme

From the message by the Kommission:
"Extensive information are handed out to candidates on what is expected from them, and they are expected to show reasonable effort to acquire said informations." (my rough translation)

You take a test you prepare for it, which comprises two aspects:
- the subject(s) at hand
- the test itself

Mr Dunn did neither, and not too surprisingly, failed. Partly because he was too blunt (honest) by giving away his real motive for the application (facilitate things), partly because he couldn't be bothered to read and follow the instructions handed over to him by the Gemeinde.

Frankly, Mr Dunn is a fool. No doubt educated, but still a fool, and a lazy one to boot.

Another way of saying it is that Einsiedeln only wants hypocritical new citizens, not honest new ones. We all know it's a show to put on, but why do we accept it as a good thing because it's easy to get done with it? Isn't honesty a more valuable asset than small-community-social-theater-performance-talent? Just saying…

Fascinating to see who is for honesty and who is for lying to the community in my thanks/groans-list. Do your coming out.

Faltrad, we lie each and every day in the sense that we rarely tell the full truth (our complete and honest opinion). And very often we lie outright. It's part of being social mammals, we couldn't live together otherwise.

For instance, when being greeted with "Hi! How are you?" how often do you actually reply with "Hi, not good" even when that would be the truth? Who, other than (perhaps) family and close friends, are told the truth? When was the last time you told your superior at work the full and unfiltered truth?

Assuming you're male:
If your girlfriend/wife has a new haircut, a new dress, a new bag, new makeup, how often do you tell her you don't like it or it doesn't fit her even though that would be the truth? My guess: Just about never, or else you two will be "ex" soon because at least one lacks some basic social skills.

I'm sure females and homosexuals could easily find similar examples - starting with the size of a males "tool", for instance.

If you take a test you subject yourself to a certain set of criteria and type of questions. Whether you like them is not relevant, neither is the question whether they make sense. You take the test you act test-specific, period.

Not full truth and no truth at all are two different things. I only follow Swiss reasoning grounds: candidates must show successful integration. How do you know it is successful if it is all staged? How can you even apply the law if there is no possibility to distinguish between lie and truth to measure integration? Why do they even look at what makes a success when there is no trust to be had in the evidence given? Why even believe in any evidence if lying is an acceptable source of evidence?

I don't care who become Swiss, this has no value to me and I live in Germany, but I do care about logic. If the Swiss make it impossible for themselves to practice what they say they want to do, then yes, I do make fun of it. Just because it's fun, not to change anything. I don't care one bit who gets accepted and who gets denied. It's intellectual fun.

__________________
Es wird nichts ausgelassen, um mich hier herauszuekeln. Ein Lehrbuch. False accusations and attacks continue. There is no stopping righteous people when they are wrong.

Even if Rosberg had to take his driver's licence in a foreign country, he would still have to go through the motions of deliberately looking at his rear mirror, and do all the little things a learner driver has to demonstrate at a driving test. Same for an 'ordinary' driver who has driven for 40 years and has to re-take licence due to a move abroad. S/He would have to demonstrate thats/he has learnt the differences between the driving code in his/her country, and be prepared for the specific tests in of the new country- even though they might be brilliant drivers. Refusing to do so because 'you are too good a driver for this nonsense' would be pretty stupid, and I'd have no sympathy if you failed.

But yes, i would personally not wish to apply in such a conservative Catholic area as Einsiedeln, I have to say- especially if not part of the community despite using it as a dormitory for years.

You're not making much of a case

In fact, you sound as if you were simply making baseless claims for claimings' sake, without actual knowledge. You may want to google, e.g. "einbürgerungstest einsiedeln" for starters, and take a sample test so at least you have an idea of what you're talking about.

Factual knowledge is verifiable, as are Verein memberships and contacts to local people.

What is indeed non-verifiable are personal opinions. I would assume that there are a multitude of reasons why somebody would want to be naturalized, some of which are ok or even good to mention in the interview, some of which probably aren't. And that would be "not the full truth" - aka you take a test you act test-specific.

Ach, I don't think it's as stick-in-the-mud as all that. Lee "Scratch" Perry seems happy enough there...

That's called playing the game of small community's life. You advocate exactl what I described as small-community-social-theater-performance-talent. If that's good enough for a Swiss citizenship commission, fine, but not to me. I do however agree that there is no way to be sure of people's genuineness and that total certitude is not the way to go if we want to do anything in life. OK for that small part.

I see what you mean- but if you don't like the rules on Monopoly, play another game. The guy has lived there long enough to know the rules didn't 'suit' him- so he should move to Zurich and apply there.

I never said I liked the guy… to me, he is stupid to want to become Swiss in the first place - I am more on his wife's side on that one - but I am not the kind of person who will prevent people to think differently. I actually got upset at some friends who expected me, after 7 years in Basel, to run for the last three miles and get my file sorted at the Einbürgerungsoffice instead of moving to Germany. I was actually disappointed that clever people expected me to have Swiss citizenship as a goal. But that is not really related to the guy's case, just saying that I am the last one to defend him. The world is colourful… as in not-black-and-white.

__________________
Es wird nichts ausgelassen, um mich hier herauszuekeln. Ein Lehrbuch. False accusations and attacks continue. There is no stopping righteous people when they are wrong.

I am not sure if trying to quantify the amount of hypocrisy offers any valuable data..when we are talking about societal rituals and traditions. It's too bad that idiosyncratic interpretation of those has cost that professor some valuable personal comfort. I think it boils down to personal liberty in adhesion to local traditions, he might not have had the same urge when reciting the wedding wows he believed in, etc. I do not think that the quality of integration should be gauged by mindlessness, conformism, pettiness..but he might actually have had a chance to change the superficiality for some important substance (given his cerebral powers and expertise) if he actually had learned that petty bit and passed and was able to vote. Bravo for the efforts of officials to revise, I am sure he is thinking about it, too. Flexibility and adjustment are intelligent skills. But at the end of the day, so is standing one's ground, me think.

__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H. Pestalozzi

“The only difference between a rut and a grave is a matter of depth.” S.P. Cadman

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." A. Einstein

What makes the clever people expect that..it sounds as an interesting cliche to think about.