Swiss citizenship - Issue #3: What’s the process and how complicated is it?

The Swiss naturalization process takes place on three levels, Federal, Cantonal and Community.   The federal level exists only to ensure that a basic standard is met and to prevent bad behavior, for instance the selling of citizenships.  Most of the authority resides at the Cantonal and Community level.  Until 2003 many communities put the acceptance of individual applicants to a vote (usually anonymous), sort of like joining a club.  This practice was overthrown in 2003 via a Federal High Court ruling stating that while there is no legal entitlement to naturalization, the applicant shall receive certain procedural guarantees, including the rights to be heard and nondiscrimination.  Since this is not practically possible via an anonymous ballot box, this procedure was ruled illegal.  This didn’t stop the Tea partiers in the SVP from giving it another whack, though, when in 2008 they introduced a popular initiative to allow for “democratic naturalizations”.   They felt the judicial branch was subverting the will of the people.  Sound familiar?  In any case,  they were proven wrong when the people soundly rejected the initiative and the Federal Citizenship Act was subsequently revised to explicitly outlaw votes on naturalizations at the ballot box.    A simultaneous victory for both Direct Democracy and the rule of law, unless you like the idea of being able to vote someone off the island (or mountain in this case) for no reason other than you don’t like them (or their religion).  

The actual administration of the process is done in the community in which one lives so I focus on our specific situation in Basel-Stadt.    There are several steps, which typically take roughly two years to complete.  The first step is to speak with someone in the Cantonal Migrations Department to obtain the application form, instructions for filling it out and a list of the various documents that must be provided.  Next, after having submitted the completed form and documents, comes the language test.  After passing the test there is an interview with a Migrations Department representative who, assuming this went well, will forward the application to both the local community board and the federal office for review.  After one last paperwork check, comes a final interview, this time with the Community Migration Commission.  Pass muster there and congratulations, you’ve done it.  You will receive a letter informing you that you are now a Swiss citizen.   I noticed in the application form that they reserve the right for the next eight years, however, to pull that baby back if they learn that you lied anywhere in the application. 

So, there you have it.  A pretty lengthy process but clear and fair. 

Swiss citizenship - Issue #2: What are our chances?

The Basel-Stadt migration office provides a thirty-one page guideline which spells out the requirements which must be met to become a Swiss citizen.  In the interests of brevity, I summarize them below as follows:

1. You must have a good character. 
2. You must be familiar with the traditions and public institutions (at the community, cantonal and federal levels).
3. You must foster relationships with Swiss people.
4. You must affirm the Swiss democracy and respect the applicable laws.
5. You must be in compliance with your private and public legal and financial obligations. 
6. You must have a certain level of language competence (spoken, written and reading) in the language of the canton where you are applying.  For us, where we live, it’s German.

Requirement #1 strikes me as pretty subjective but I’ll go out on a limb and say that it shouldn’t be an issue.  I think we’re looking good for #2 as well.  Simply put, we enjoy the traditions so compliance there comes naturally.  The third requirement refers to one’s level of integration and willingness to exist outside of the expat bubble.  Certainly, we have American friends here but I’ve never really been a fan of the expat bubble and we have many friends who are just normal Swiss people.  The stereotype of the Swiss as being stiff and unfriendly is inaccurate in our experience.  Perhaps, it’s because we live in Basel, reputed to be the most open of the cantons to foreigners.  In any event, we’re good there too.  Check.  When I looked at #4 it occurred to me that some might translate the phrasing to include the pledging of allegiance to Switzerland.  Hmmm.  When I considered this interpretation it was the first time I really looked at the decision and what it means.   My generation, as children, repeated the US version, hand over hearts, each morning of grade school.  I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America.  And to the nation, for which it stands, one nation…  I haven’t said those words in years, decades probably.  Yet they just roll off the tongue.  Funny how that is.   So, can one actually pledge allegiance to two countries?   I don’t know so I decide to translate the phrase less literally, something more like, “I promise to obey the rules and not cause any trouble”.  This, I can definitely agree to so once again, check.  Regarding #5, I have always been way too fiscally conservative to be anything but compliant in matters of financial obligations.  Check.  Lastly, with regards to the language requirement, Lisa and I should be okay because in our canton the test is in standard German not Swiss German and since all of Heidi’s schooling has been in the local schools, she doesn’t even have to take it.   So, there you have it.  On the surface we’re looking good.  Coming up next, the process.  

Swiss citizenship - Issue #1: Can we keep our US citizenship?

Since we have no intention to renounce our American citizenship, this is an obvious first issue to clarify.  From the US side, the Supreme Court ruled in 1967 (Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253) that Congress lacks the constitutional authority to pass laws that strip American citizens of their nationality without their consent.  Trump made some blather recently suggesting he might bypass such court rulings for flag burners but that was just more silly rhetoric.  Either way, it’s clear.  Our US passports are ours to keep unless we willingly give them up.  From the Swiss side, since January 1^st, 1992 Switzerland has had no restrictions on multiple citizenships.  This was established during the same legislative flurry that abolished  the practice of confiscating a woman’s citizenship if she marries a foreigner.    Wow.  Can you imagine?  Men could get mail order brides but not women.  In any event, also clear.  No problem so we move on.

Swiss Citizenship - Is it time?

I heard a rumor that the Swiss naturalization laws had been changed, reducing the residency requirement from twelve to ten years.  And just as we’ve reached ten years.   Coincidence?  And right after our recent presidential election when we’ve become so vulnerable?   Sounds suspicious.  In any event, I decided to look into it.  To be clear and all joking aside, I wouldn’t do this to escape Trump.  First of all, I’m not going to let him chase me from my own country and neither should anyone else.  Second, if things get that bad there will be no escape anyway.   The world is no longer that small. No, the reasons to consider this are simpler and less reactionary.  We feel at home here and I’ve often wished I could vote (we get a lot of opportunities) and for Paige, it’s another future market in which to find work.   And besides, why not?  My age immunizes me against the military service obligation, which may be the only down side.  So, as I said, I looked into it and learned that, yes, in fact the Parliament decided in June, 2014 to make this change.  It’s not effective, though, until January 1^st, 2018.  I shouldn’t be surprised.  The wheels of change move pretty slowly here.  It does, however, mean that we can initiate the process a half year sooner than before.   Basically just a year from now.  At our age, the proverbial blink of an eye.   This means that it’s really not too early to begin thinking it through and, if we decide to go for it, to prepare. 

So, the first question is the most basic.  Do we want to?  To paraphrase Grouch Marx, should we seek to join a country that would have us as citizens?    Well, there are clearly many considerations to weigh.  It’s a significant decision not to be taken lightly.    I’ve been clear in a previous post that we’ve no intention to renounce our US citizenship and nothing has changed there (populist extremists be damned) so why go to the trouble (and expense) of doubling up?  With this question in mind , I’m setting out on a quest to learn what’s involved and what it means to gain your Schweizer Bürgerrechts.  To compare the advantages and disadvantages.  In other words, to gather the input for an informed decision.   This process -  what I learn and how it feeds into our ultimate decision - will be shared in the coming weeks. Here and only here, in An American in Basel.

US Election

Now that three weeks have passed since our ghastly election I've decided to post something political after all. Sorry, but I've gotta do it.  I'll be positive, though, I promise.   
In these past weeks I’ve tried, as have many others, to understand what happened.  Clearly, getting my news from the mainstream media alone isn’t sufficient.  I do my best to see both sides by reading The NYT and Washington Post for the left, the WSJ for the right and Time and The Economist for the middle but this didn’t prepare me nor has it helped me to understand.  What to do?  I decided to go outside my comfort zone and look at some of the blogs I’ve heard so much about but have diligently avoided.  This led me to a post on GraniteGrok (http://granitegrok.com/blog/2016/11/open-letter-hillarys-supporters) which professes to be a reach-out to those who voted for Hillary.  An attempt at an olive branch so to speak.  I decided to take him at his word so I responded to his post.  I’m still waiting for his response but thought why not post it on my own blog so here it is.

Dear Mr. Kofalt,

Since your proposal to work together to further civilized debate makes complete sense I decided to do something I’ve never done.  I’m responding to a blog posting. Or, as you’ve phrased it, the ball is in my court so I’m playing it. 

First, I should clarify that just like you, most likely, aren’t an “alt right” Trump voter, I’m not a “liberal” Hillary voter.  Otherwise, both of us wouldn’t be trying to bridge this communication gap.  The good news is that we’re not isolated examples.  We each represent what I think is a majority of our respective voting blocks, people who don’t enjoy this conflict and would like to reach common ground.  This was the tenth presidential election in which I’ve voted, each time as a registered Republican.  Five times I voted for the Republican, four times for the Democrat and once for Perot (a wasted vote which I still regret).   When asked, I describe myself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal.  Entering the homestretch of this year’s election I confess that I was indeed, to use your words, one of those who thought all Trump supporters were hate mongers, Neanderthals and uneducated dolts.  The election changed this, however, because too many people that I know, respect and love voted for him.  This is not something to be casually shaken off and on its own will not go away.  We need to work together to understand each other. 

Hopefully, you will not be surprised that I agree fully with you on some of your points while on others we share the basic objective but differ only on the path to get there.   Also, and most importantly, I am 100% in agreement that we need to allow or, better yet, encourage, civilized dissent.   I also agree that even speech which might be interpreted as hateful or hurtful must be permitted.   I think that you would agree, though, that speech that can be interpreted as hateful usually doesn’t contribute to civilized discussion (on both sides, of course).   

You mention that I may consider you a racist and xenophobe if you object to open borders and unrestrained immigration.   Well, I’m am not a proponent of unrestrained immigration either so if that is the extent of your objection then my opinion is that you are not a racist or xenophobe.   However, if you believe that we should categorically restrict immigration on the basis of religion then, on that point, we disagree.  Do you?  Just trying to drill down to fully to understand the nature of our disagreement, if there is one.

You express concern that if you oppose a massive, failed welfare state in which hard-working people pay to sustain a permanent underclass then I will consider you selfish and mean-spirited.  I am also not a fan of unrestricted welfare but do you include access to health care in the welfare bucket?  As I’m sure you’re aware, it is children who suffer disproportionately when access to health care isn’t available.  Is that what you want?   If the answer is yes, then I do think that you are being selfish and mean.  If not, we agree again.

On the matter of the environment, I don’t know anyone who hates it and most people I know, including those who voted for Hillary, support America’s quest for energy independence.  So I think I agree with you on this one too.   I do believe, however, that some energy sources can be more damaging to the environment than others and that this should be part of any reasonable discussion.   Coal is a valid source of energy as long as the power plants are properly regulated.  If not, well, that’s why all of the buildings were black in Europe a hundred years ago and China’s air is so awful today.   

You noted that I might consider anyone who isn’t convinced that man-made global warming is real to be an ignorant flat-earther who simply doesn’t believe in science.   My perspective on this is that no one absolutely knows what is going to happen but there are many well respected scientists who make good arguments for the global warming side and the consequence for ignoring it is pretty dire.  It’s a huge gamble, one whose down side is a price that we, those living now, will not have to pay.  So, my position is that there’s too much at stake and ignoring it is less a matter of ignorance and more a matter of selfishness.  Are you that selfish?  Probably not. 

You’re concerned that I think you hate women if you (I quote you directly here) “object to butchering children in the womb or even as they are in the process of being born, cutting them up, and selling their body parts.”  This is the only point you made in a way that you should be ashamed of.  Clearly no one feels that way, certainly not in the provocative way you’ve phrased it.   I am very much not a proponent of abortion and would never advise someone else to have an abortion.  But I feel equally strongly that it is not my choice to make for someone else.  I do, however, understand the point I think you have attempted to make so do not feel at all that this means you hate women.   It would be better, though, to make your point in another way.  It’s not very helpful towards furthering the dialog you profess to favor. 

You resent being told that if you have any concerns about allowing men to use women’s bathrooms you are a reactionary bigot.  I assume that you refer to the gender identity issue and whether people who are born one sex but identify with the other should be allowed to use that bathroom.  I admit to not understanding the gender identity thing.  You have a woman who thinks she’s a guy and therefore lives as a guy.  Does that person then date a woman?  Does that woman know that he was a she?  Like I said, I don't get it but my position is that I don't have to get it.  “It” doesn’t affect me.  Now if we take this same example and apply it to the bathroom concern, we have this person that looks and behaves like a guy being forced to use the woman’s bathroom.  Do you really want that?  Probably not so I don’t think you’re a bigot. I just think you haven’t really discussed this with someone on that side of the fence.  Have you?

I’m glad that you don't think that others’ sex lives are your business.   There are some who do but that number is small and dropping quickly.   In any event, I never considered this to be a Trump supporter position anyway.     

The matter of photo ID at the polls always seemed to me to be a solution looking for a problem.  I’m not aware of a voter fraud problem.  I’ve looked and looked and haven’t found any evidence.  If you’ve got any, please let me know.  If not, why do anything that makes it more difficult to vote?  I don’t think you are a fascist and I don’t think that you explicitly want to deny people the right to vote but this action has that effect.  Bottom line, again, is why?  Why do anything that makes it even a little more difficult to vote and brings no advantage and solves no problem?  But I do think that for some people minority vote suppression is the objective. 

On the gun control issue, I’m certain that there are very few creepy “gun nuts” with paranoid tendencies and an inclination towards violence.   Therefore, I do not think that you or other Trump supporters are categorically such people.    I confess that I don’t understand the desire to own assault weapons but I don’t understand the desire to attend opera either.   For me, it’s not a hill to die on so while I disagree with unfettered access to guns of all shapes and sizes, I don’t resent you voting in this direction. 

Muslim immigration.  Oops, here’s one where I think we do sharply disagree.  I do consider those who support restrictions on immigration of Muslims (refugees or otherwise) to be religious bigots.  It’s pretty much the definition of a religious bigot.  This is probably the issue on which Trump has been most irresponsible. Probably no common ground here, though, so let’s agree to disagree and move on. 

Your concern that I believe you are a racist if you don't fully support Barack Obama and all of his policies is unfounded.   I don’t support everything he’s done either.  I’m generally happy with what he’s done but not everything.  So, we’re in agreement again. 

The next concern is that I think that if you didn’t vote for Hillary then you are denying women the dignity and equality that they deserve.  I might have said this in July once Trump was declared the Republican candidate, mostly because I thought he was so unqualified and I would have been searching for any explanation for those who supported him.  It would definitely not have been because I thought Hillary deserved it though.  No one “deserves” the presidency.  It’s not a reward, it’s a job of great responsibility.  Ultimately, the way things went down on November 8^th convinced me that there is indeed an explanation besides misogyny.   We do not have 25 million misogynistic women.  They voted for him for another reason as, I assume, did you.  I need to work harder to understand this better.  I hope that you appreciate that the time I’ve spent writing this shows that I’m trying.

So, there we have it.  We either agree on most points or at least I don’t think negatively of you for taking the positions you have.   There is one where I think you seem to be a religious bigot but on the whole, pretty reasonable.  Certainly a starting point for further, spirited but civilized, discussion. 

On the general topic of Barack Obama, he’s clearly taken some actions that you disagree with.  I’m pretty sure that Trump will now enact some changes that I will disagree with but it’s hard to say just yet as there may be a big difference between his campaign rhetoric and what he actually intends to do.   I hope so anyway.  One of the points you didn’t make, one which I would have fully agreed with, is that there is a huge dissatisfaction with the growing gap between rich and poor and how the middle class is being ignored.  I’m surprised you didn't raise it since I think it is one of the main reasons Trump won the election.   Sanders is the only candidate who would have attempted to address this.  He wouldn’t have gotten very far but he would have tried.  Trump implies he will address this.  At least that is the understanding that many of his supporters have.  I hope he will and I am ready to give him a chance.   

How did I do in explaining my position in a civilized fashion?  Can we continue the dialog?

Herbstmesse

I’m not a big carnival or amusement park kind of guy so Herbstmesse (Fall fair) would never appear on my top “X” list but I like traditions and have got to give credit where credit is due.  After all, when the bell at St. Martin’s church opened the fair this past Saturday, it marked the 546^th  installment, dating back to 1471.  It was on July 11^th of that year when, at the personal request of Pope Pius II, the Holy Roman Emperor Friedrich III granted the Mayor of Basel, Hannsen von Berenfels, the perpetual right to hold two fairs each year, one in the spring and one in the fall.   This was not without some controversy, however, and in spite of this sponsorship from the top the spring fair fell victim to compromise twenty years later. Protectionism, it seems, is not just a contemporary issue and twenty years of bitching by the Basel guilds against the lifting of duties enjoyed by the out-of-town merchants during the trade fair wore down even a pope and an emperor.  As part of the compromise, the fall version continued and with the exception of a few cancellations along the way due to plagues and world wars it’s gone on now for over half a millennia.  As I said, I like traditions so I find this pretty cool.  In the ten years we've lived here, Lisa and I would succumb a few times each fall to Paige’s pleas and take her down.  How could we deny her, she enjoyed it so much.  Now that she’s almost fourteen, though, I confess to a bit of melancholy as she no longer counts on us to take her, scooting down instead with friends to experience the thrills of the various heart stopping rides. Sigh… This growing up part doesn’t get any easier, even with, maybe especially with, number four.  Anyway, speaking of the rides, obviously they’re all temporary installations and as an engineer I find them to be pretty damn impressive.  I sometimes wonder what Pius and Frederich would say when strapped into Daemonium, Maxximum 2 or der Burner.  An eternity of indulgences, I suppose, to the person who gets them off alive.  

US politics, viewed from afar

Workplace discussion of politics is rarely a good idea and I expect that this year, in the US, it is especially unwise.  Over here, however, Lisa and I get a free pass.   In fact, we’re expected not only to discuss politics but also to explain them and this year that means explaining the unexplainable.  We’re asked, “What’s going on in the US?  Why does half the country hate the other half?  Why is the religious right supporting a thrice-married adulterer who’s never read the bible?  Why do so many people hate Hillary?”  Our colleagues generally have a pretty positive view of Americans (fat, friendly and hard working) so they’re mystified by the support that Trump has received.   Europeans receive their news from the so-called mainstream media since they don’t have the cafeteria selection existing in the US (news or otherwise) and they probably read more about our elections than we do.  Also, they’re clearly much more invested in our results than we are in theirs.   I remember 2008, when people here were so unanimously supportive of our having elected Obama.   Even Paige’s Kindergarten teacher congratulated her.  How she beamed.   This year, they’re concerned but I’ve been telling everyone that it’ll be okay.  I admit to not always feeling fully confident in this but we recently spent two weeks in the US on vacation and while I’ve now actually met Trump supporters, I’ve also seen that the jig is up.   That’s not to say that there won’t be significant residual issues come November 9^th, there will, but the Obergroper will not be in charge.   Lisa and I did our part while stateside, mailing in our ballots (ironically from Texas although they’ll count in Rhode Island).  I made a copy to share with colleagues here and I must be doing a good job at explaining things as the only question I got was, “Who is Rocky De La Fuente”?  Also, I made them promise not to fill it out.  That would be rigging.