IMMIGRATION: A small town in Slovakia held a vote on accepting refugees; 97 percent said no. “’We’re not haters,’ said Zoltan Jakus, one of the organizers of the vote. ‘But I think this will end badly.’ . . . The people of Gabcikovo say they are not cold-hearted or racist, but they are clearly worried, and many of them are asking the same questions as other Europeans who feel uneasy about the rising numbers of war refugees and economic migrants.”Of course, the whole point of "refugee policy", in the US and Europe, is that if the Powers That Be have decided that your town of 5000 Catholics is going to have 500 young Muslim males added to it, you do not get a vote.In Switzerland, it's different—Steve Sailer wrote this in 2000:
A fascinating feature of Swiss naturalization policy is that localities can veto applicants for citizenship. For example, the voters of Emmen recently approved the naturalization of eight Italian immigrants, while rejecting 48 other applicants, almost all of them Bosnians. This exercise in democracy caused syndicated columnist Raoul Lowery Contreras to cry out in anguishIt's not clear to me that the referendum held in the village of Gabcikovo will be more than a protest, but let me point out that if Gabcikovo were in the United States, the villagers would be investigated under the Fair Housing Act for holding it.
"What kind of society would we have in the United States if each individual city in it could decide who was an American citizen? We would have a society like Switzerland." [The Rise Of Unamerican Know-Nothings By Raoul Lowery Contreras, CalNews.com, March 23, 2000]The Horror! The Horror!