You don’t need to meet all of them. You need to meet any of them.
Which makes it almost trivial for parents for example because you just need to send your kids to a normal school instead of an expat only private school.
1) Because taxes and money are not everything. You do not buy welfare, it’s not an insurance. It’s a social safety net provided by the society irrespective of how much money you contributed to it. So the criteria for getting welfare must be something else, for example are you a permanent member of the society in question.
2) The actual non-exhaustive list of ways to prove you are integrated in Switzerland, Kt. ZH is: do your children go to the public school? Are you a member of a local sports, arts or similar club? Do you have regular social contact with Swiss citizens? Can you speak the local language? Do you volunteer in the local fire department? Did you volunteer for the Civil Defense Service?
To be fair, for permanent residence the bar on any of these questions is quite low. But that is how you sensibly check that.
Compared to a normal Swiss bank: CHF wire transfer and EUR SEPA wire transfers are usually free of charge. Dukascopy charges 2.30 for each CHF or EUR transfer and 19 USD for each USD wire, on top of 0.50% currency conversion.
And, their FAQ clearly states they don’t accept US citizens.
First of all, _basic_ rights should be afforded to _all_ humans. That's not what the discussion here is. The discussion here are non-basic rights, like the right to enter a geographic area without restriction or the right to state welfare.
You saying "job/role" is where the argument falls apart, because job and role are not the same. Yes, I absolutely agree that people who fulfill roles in society should be afforded protection of that society.
There are roles in society that have nothing to do with your job: neighbor, volunteer, person you ask for direction on the street, parent, parent of your child's friend... Those are also the roles that typically have some form of emotional, spiritual and cultural work associated with them.
Refusing to fill those roles and filling only the role of "high-income immigrant" isn't necessarily a net positive to the society and should not on that fact alone be provided permanent residence.
I will say however, I think parents of children that attend public school in a country should have almost automatic PR. Not fully automatic, but 99.99% of such cases are net positive, much more than high-income immigrants.
Because if the will of the people is for person A to serve in office X, then the will of the people should be absolute. I'd even allow election of minors and other currently non-eligible persons.
The only requirement should be that you are politically member of the given area, which typically means you actually physically live in the city/state/country.
Note, in Switzerland, you can already be voted into office _against your will_. And then you MUST serve. And this has actually happened in recent past, in remote villages to be fair.
If you move to CH on your German EU passport, register at the local authorities and get your residency card, most traditional Swiss banks will open an account for you. You just won’t be able to do it online or with the Neo-banks. But an actual physical UBS office or Kantonbank will eventually be able to handle the paperwork for you.
It’s a super interesting example because the Swiss German in the question would also vehemently disagree that they have anything in common with the German :)
I’m actually curious if the GP expects „yes“ or „no“ as an answer, because I couldn’t even say. It’s probably „yes“, but…
YSK: This is a disputed view. Wether nation comes first, or the state, is something academic historians don’t agree on.
While it sort-of fits if you limit it to France, it breaks down even when you cross the border to Germany.
Three different countries speak German as their official language, and Germany itself wasn’t really a nation-state until Nazism. It was a multi-ethnic empire before that, and a bunch of random kingdoms and ducheys before that. And after 1945, it was not a nation-state either, since it was somewhat famously 2 states.
I don’t think there is a formal definition of E2EE.
Here’s Wikipedia’s definition:
„End-to-end encryption (E2EE) is a method of implementing a secure communication system where only the sender and intended recipient can read the messages“
Note the complete lack of client/server distinction. It’s simply about intended recipients.
True. But the server is not completely unprotected even if not stored in my basement.
The disks are fully encrypted, so the attacker must be careful not to accidentally interrupt power or force a reboot.
And they can’t just log into the machine, it is still a normal Linux machine with passwords.
So they need to attach to a running system and actively hack it, which is completely possible but is not going to be done by a random employee for no reason.
In memory. If the police shows up and they disconnect my server to sieze it, for example, the photos are lost to them.
And the Hetzner employee would need to specifically target me, because I doubt they would implement a dragnet that pierces through the bespoke random process on my bare metal server to scan the photos in memory.
That is a lot more secure than „Google scans all pictures routinely and fully automatically sends the police to your door, and you have no recourse if they are wrong“ that the EFF article discussed.
Ok but again, that is introducing an arbitrary split that is not based on tech. What if I have two phones? Would you expect phone A to see images taken by phone B? If yes, obviously my phones need to share keys.
So what is different in saying „All family devices should see images taken by any device“? They are all clients, including the storage&processing device.
Insisting that E2EE have „ends“ on clients is not useful. It’s much better to define „end“ based on control.
Which makes it almost trivial for parents for example because you just need to send your kids to a normal school instead of an expat only private school.