The significance is not the micro catastrophe (except to the victim) but rather the "tradition" tribalist mentality, whose scope is much larger. In particular it is throughout conservative anti-immigration.

As for Trump's remark on African shole countries (is that like the Shihara Desert?) -- that is exactly what they are. Why does anyone think their residents are so desperate to get out if they have any ambition for their own lives at all? Their "foreign aid" is only welfare statism further entrenching their national mentality while doing nothing to improve the ideas of the people there. "The solution is not to bring Africans here" is true about the problem of sholeness there in Africa, but it is a solution for any individual who wants to make something of his life (as opposed to seeking better welfare here)..

This has nothing to do with ISIS. The woman targeted by the local town as being "too annoying" in challenging their "tradition" is not an ISIS terrorist. There are no rational arguments, from Objectivism or anywhere else, for citizenship of an individual based on "tradition" as voted by a local clique. Whatever else they do in their lives, that is tribalist.

Switzerland- people have enough to eat, medical care is easy, water is safe to drink, federal and regional
governments are not swamped in debt, the streets are clean and all the rest of it.
Wait a mo- there are annoying people complaining about cows forced to wear heavy bells.
How do we here in the Gulch respond to this (micro) catastroscope?

Here in Australia there are what we call the serial whingers, it is a national sport.
So I was pleased to see the Swiss suitably putting one down.
Interesting tho' how so many responses are from the conservative side, almost only ewv refers to
Objectivist principles. This case appears to be one where the problem is due to 'the sanction of the
victim', we allow ourselves to be unduly bothered by trivia.
First world problems.

To get a different kind of feel in the gut, not a belly laugh but sickening retch, look at-
http://www.americanthinker.com/articl...
what_i_learned_in_peace_corps_in_africa_trump_is_right.html
(all one line)
Senegal. Africa. Peace Corps. Jan 1 2018.
and the paper-
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/14...
'Why Foreign Aid Fails'
which is referenced in the above.
The topic goes to the core of what this site is about, it should have its own thread.

Not by me today anyway, it is Sunday, places to go, people see, cans to demolish... See you later.

You said "Governments are morally entitled to reject an application for citizenship for any reason or no reason". No government has any such right for any action. A proper government does not operate in any realm by any entitlement to do what it pleases for "any reason or no reason". That is statism.

Human beings have rights because of the their nature as human beings no matter where they are or where they came from, not from government as the source. Civil rights are supposed to be implementation of rights in law, not arbitrary. When someone comes here from another country he is subject to and protected by our laws, including immigration law. Non-citizens do not lose their rights, which can only be abrogated by injustice. The qualifications for attaining citizenship should be objective, not someone's notion of enforcing "tradition" under the whims of "any reason or no reason".

Worse things have happened.
Some slap down lessons I pay no attention to.

There are many valid Objectivist (not conservative) arguments for using a person's behavior, as well as his or her principles, as criteria for citizenship. To denigrate the Swiss as "tribalists" is to render the term meaningless in the age of ISIS.

Governments are morally obliged to protect the rights of their citizens and to refrain from violating the rights of non-citizens. They are not morally obliged to turn non-citizens into citizens, and they do not violate the rights of non-citizens by refusing to do so.

I never said governments are morally entitled to do "anything they choose."

Governments are not morally entitled to do anything they choose. They are supposed to have an obligation to equally enforce objective law to protect the rights of the individual, and must do that. Excluding individuals from citizenship who otherwise qualify is a violation depriving of them of their rights, which certainly is coercive and improper. There is no justification for arbitrarily denying people their rights by "choosing" to suppress them in the name of someone's "tradition". The notion of a government doing anything for "any reason or no reason" is tyrannical.

I had seen that article but didn't notice the dates. The philosophical issue lives on, as we see from conservatives all the time. I disagree with all her ideas about animal rights but am glad she got her citizenship against the tribalists.

If there were a large horde of foreigners seeking to move in and change the country farther from individualism it would be a matter of invasion and conquer, not immigration. That is a big topic in Switzerland and there is a big movement properly resisting such invasion, especially by Muslims, in the name of immigration.

The impact of regulations is broader than Swiss law because the banks have overseas branches and foreign customers. That is how the IRS harassed and intimidated them. Swiss privacy laws could not stop the US government from crushing them, with threats of more to come. One result was Swiss bank policies excluding or discouraging American investors.

Governments are morally entitled to reject an application for citizenship for any reason or no reason, as long as they do not violate the applicant's rights by initiating force.

UPDATE: "Woman deemed 'too annoying' to get Swiss citizenship wins battle for passport"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wor...
This article is from last May, so the news has been out for a while.

We got dinged (for going off topic I suppose).
Must be the bandit.

Banking in Switzerland is regulated by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA), which derives its authority from a series of federal statutes. The country's tradition of bank secrecy, which dates to the Middle Ages, was first codified in the Federal Act on Banks and Savings Banks, colloquially known as the Banking Law of 1934. The regime of bank secrecy that Swiss banks are famous for came under pressure in the wake of the UBS tax evasion scandal and the 1934 banking law was amended in 2009 to limit tax evasion by non-Swiss bank clients.

Whether or not she should be allowed to attain citizenship, based on the full context after living there since the age of 8, "speaking out" against "tradition" is not a moral standard for rejecting it. They are oppressive tribalists.

Many pluses (since only one plus click is allowed).

Holding independent ideas and constantly annoying others who disagree with those ideas are two different things.

Citizenship is not a "moral right", and a country has no moral responsibility to grant such citizenship to a person from another country. It is not initiating force by refusing to do so.

From what I have read the IRS has so interfered with and intimidated Swiss banking over the last several years that Swiss banks have imposed restrictions on American money, too. They no longer want you to have a Swiss account as a home for your money.

Her protest in speaking out contrary to "tradition" is not grounds for denying citizenship. That standard wasn't just mentioned as what "someone" said, it was the central point of the article. The reporter summed up the voters' rejection in the words of the "president of the local Swiss People’s Party", the populist and dominant political party in Switzerland, who is quoted as saying Ms Holten "has a 'big mouth' and that residents did not want to grant her citizenship 'if she annoys us and doesn’t respect our traditions'."

This theme has been repeated in several other news articles. This one https://www.theatlantic.com/internati... concludes:

"If things don’t go her way for the third time, however, perhaps she should consider seeking residency instead in a country that rewards brashness, and idiosyncrasy, and above all media savvy—a country that makes a political virtue out of rankling one’s peers. Holten, after all, who is Dutch by birth, Swiss by choice, but, it seems, very much American by temperament, is already at work on a book..."

Better to debate with a vegan than be oppressed by a tribe that suppresses debate.

You liked the fact that the Swiss community reacted with the proper values and sense of life against an obnoxious person of the kind we are commonly demanded to tolerate in thought as well as action. But the tribalist "traditionalists" are not preferable, they are a false alternative farther along in the imposition of their ethnicity imposed by government.

The individual they are oppressing is not and cannot tell them what to do with their private property or make them sacrifice to animals. She is advocating for a position they have (properly) rejected and which she cannot enforce but does have the right to believe and speak for.

A country or a town "community" is not a private association. It has no moral right to reject citizenship or a passport by the standards of tribalist demands to shut up and submit to its "tradition" or in accordance with what a majority finds "too annoying". That is crude collectivism and subjectivism, not protecting private property. Such communitarianism is anti-reason and anti-individualism. It is the same principle you see in communist and religious societies.

She is not a "guest" other than being a guest of any individual owner who invites her to stay where she has been living, rents to her, or whatever other voluntary arrangement they have. Being a "guest" of a country is an entirely different concept. It has no bearing on rights to immigrate or become a citizen and obtain a passport as a long term resident, let alone freedom of thought and speech.

If there is a legitimate reason to deny her citizenship or a passport the article does not mention it.

What does that sign mean?

I think I would find the woman annoying myself,
but that is not really a good reason to deny citizen-
ship. Has she been asked if she would accept the Swiss constitution? (Or do they have one? Or is it
written?) I believe people who take American citizenship are asked that; and have to pass a test on American government.

In the article some one mentions traditions as a reason , that is not a good reason to reject citizenship.
She on the other hand protested to the owners of private property about how they should care for their property.
Where are you from Lucky? You said your country.